Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
At the outset, we note that while an order determining an application to quash a subpoena relating to a criminal proceeding which was issued after the commencement of the criminal action (CPL 1.20) is not directly appealable by the immediate parties to that criminal action ( People v. Santos, 64 N.Y.2d 702; cf. Matter of Morgenthau v. Hopes, 55 A.D.2d 255, lv dismissed 41 N.Y.2d 1007), where, as here, the individual seeking appellate review of the order is not a party to the underlying criminal action, the order is final and appealable as to that individual ( People v. Johnson, 103 A.D.2d 754; People v. Marin, 86 A.D.2d 40).
We conclude that the appellant's application to quash the Grand Jury subpoena based on the existence of an alleged parent/child privilege is premature. A witness cannot raise the issue of privilege until he or she actually appears and is questioned ( Matter of Cunningham v. Nadjari, 39 N.Y.2d 314; Matter of A. M., 61 A.D.2d 425). Accordingly, the application to quash the Grand Jury subpoena was properly denied. We note that a guardian ad litem should be appointed to represent the child in any further proceedings. Brown, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.