In Newsday, Inc. V. Empire State Dev. Corp., 98 NY2d 359, 774 N.E.2d 1187, 746 N.Y.S.2d 855 (2002), petitioner sought disclosure of subpoenas that had been issued by a court. However, at the time the FOIL requests were served, they were in the files of the respondent, Empire State Development Corp. ("ESDC"). The subpoenas had been served upon ESDC during the course of an investigation of it by the local District Attorney's office. Since the ESDC, "a state public corporation," was "undeniably an agency under FOIL," the subpoenas while in the files of ESDC were clearly "agency records" in the files of an "agency" and therefore subject to FOIL disclosure. (Id. at 362). However, the Court of Appeals went on the state that had the same subpoenas been sought from the files of the court that had issued them, the court would not have been required to produce them pursuant to a FOIL request since courts are "immune from compulsory disclosure under FOIL." As the Court reasoned: "To be sure, had the subpoenas remained in the exclusive possession of the court on whose behalf they were issued, they would have been immune from compulsory disclosure under FOIL. That, however, would not have been due to the fact that it was the court that produced them, but because the judiciary is expressly excluded from agency status under FOIL. Therefore, no "information . . . in any physical form" held or kept by a court as such is subject at all to FOIL, any more so than would records held or kept by a private person or any nongovernmental entity. The immunity of the subpoenas from FOIL when once possessed by a court however, does not run with those records. When they were served upon ESDC, a FOIL defined agency, they were fully subject to FOIL disclosure in the absence of any showing by ESDC that some statutory exemption applies." Id. at 362-363.