New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. General Business Law § 352 (2026)

Investigation by attorney-general

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 352. Investigation by attorney-general. 1. Whenever it shall appear
to the attorney-general, either upon complaint or otherwise, that in the
advertisement, investment advice, purchase or sale within this state of
any commodity dealt in on any exchange within the United States of
America or the delivery of which is contemplated by transfer of
negotiable documents of title all of which are hereinafter called
commodities, or that in the issuance, exchange, purchase, sale,
promotion, negotiation, advertisement, investment advice or distribution
within or from this state, of any stocks, bonds, notes, evidences of
interest or indebtedness or other securities, including oil and mineral
deeds or leases and any interest therein, sold or transferred in whole
or in part to the purchaser where the same do not effect a transfer of
the title in fee simple to the land, or negotiable documents of title,
or foreign currency orders, calls or options therefor hereinafter called
security or securities, any person, partnership, corporation, company,
trust or association, or any agent or employee thereof, shall have
employed, or employs, or is about to employ any device, scheme or
artifice to defraud or for obtaining money or property by means of any
false pretense, representation or promise, or that any person,
partnership, corporation, company, trust or association, or any agent or
employee thereof, shall have made, makes or attempts to make within or
from this state fictitious or pretended purchases or sales of securities
or commodities or that any person, partnership, corporation, company,
trust or association, or agent or employee thereof shall have employed,
or employs, or is about to employ, any deception, misrepresentation,
concealment, suppression, fraud, false pretense or false promise, or
shall have engaged in or engages in or is about to engage in any
practice or transaction or course of business relating to the purchase,
exchange, investment advice or sale of securities or commodities which
is fraudulent or in violation of law and which has operated or which
would operate as a fraud upon the purchaser, or that any broker, dealer,
or salesman, as defined by section three hundred fifty-nine-e of this
article, or any agent or employee thereof, has sold or offered for sale
or is attempting to sell or is offering for sale any security or
securities in violation of the provisions of said section or section
three hundred fifty-nine-ee, or that any other section of this article
has been violated, any one or all of which devices, schemes, artifices,
fictitious or pretended purchases or sales of securities or commodities,
deceptions, misrepresentations, concealments, suppressions, frauds,
false pretenses, false promises, practices, transactions and courses of
business are hereby declared to be and are hereinafter referred to as a
fraudulent practice or fraudulent practices or he believes it to be in
the public interest that an investigation be made, he may in his
discretion either require or permit such person, partnership,
corporation, company, trust or association, or any agent or employee
thereof, to file with him a statement in writing under oath or otherwise
as to all the facts and circumstances concerning the subject matter
which he believes it is to the public interest to investigate, and for
that purpose may prescribe forms upon which such statements shall be
made.  The attorney-general may also require such other data and
information as he may deem relevant and may make such special and
independent investigations as he may deem necessary in connection with
the matter.
  2. The attorney-general, his deputy or other officer designated by him
is empowered to subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance, examine
them under oath before him or a magistrate, a court of record or a judge
or justice thereof and require the production of any books or papers
which he deems relevant or material to the inquiry. Such power of
subpoena and examination shall not abate or terminate by reason of any
action or proceeding brought by the attorney-general under this article.
  3. No person shall be excused from attending such inquiry in pursuance
to the mandates of a subpoena, or from producing a paper or book, or
from being examined or required to answer a question on the ground of
failure of tender or payment of a witness fee and/or mileage, unless at
the time of such appearance or production, as the case may be, such
witness makes demand for such payment as a condition precedent to the
offering of testimony or production required by the subpoena and unless
such payment is not thereupon made. The provisions for payment of
witness fee and/or mileage do not apply to any officer, director or
person in the employ of any person, partnership, corporation, company,
trust or association whose conduct or practices are being investigated.
  4. If a person subpoenaed to attend such inquiry fails to obey the
command of a subpoena without reasonable cause, or if a person in
attendance upon such inquiry shall without reasonable cause refuse to be
sworn or to be examined or to answer a question or to produce a book or
paper when ordered so to do by the officer conducting such inquiry, or
if a person, partnership, corporation, company, trust or association
fails to perform any act required hereunder to be performed, he shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor.
  5. It shall be the duty of all public officers, their deputies,
assistants, subordinates, clerks or employees and all other persons to
render and furnish to the attorney-general, his deputy or other
designated officer when requested all information and assistance in
their possession or within their power. Any officer participating in
such inquiry and any person examined as a witness upon such inquiry who
shall disclose to any person other than the attorney-general the name of
any witness examined or any other information obtained upon such inquiry
except as directed by the attorney-general shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case: People v. Credit Suisse Sec., 31 N.Y.3d 622 (NY 2018).
People v. Credit Suisse Sec., 31 N.Y.3d 622 (NY 2018). · cites it 7× “The Martin Act, codified at General Business Law article 23-A, "authorizes the Attorney General to investigate and enjoin fraudulent practices in the marketing of stocks, bonds and other securities within or from New York State ( see General Business Law §§ 352, 353)" ( Kerusa…”
State v. Metz, 241 A.D.2d 192 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · cites it 5× “Metz were the sponsors, the Attorney-General initiated an investigation in 1990 pursuant to his pow *194 ers under General Business Law § 352. The two complexes, Maplewood Gardens Apartment Corporation and Rockville Tudor Apartment Corporation, 1 were owned and managed by…”
Kerusa Co. v. W10Z/515 Real Est. Ltd., 906 N.E.2d 1049 (NY 2009). · cites it 2× “At the time of its enactment in 1921, “no one realized” that the statute would eventually “come to embrace a then-unknown species of investment activity”; namely, “the offer and sale of cooperative apartments (‘coops’) and condominiums” (see Kaufmann, Introduction and Commentary…”
State v. Justin, 3 Misc. 3d 973 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003). · cites it 9× “Fraudulent practices under the Martin Act (General Business Law art 23-A) include the making of negligent and/or intentional material misrepresentations or omissions in the selling of securities, as well as the failure by the issuer and the salespeople to comply with…”
People v. First Meridian Plan. Corp., 658 N.E.2d 1017 (NY 1995). · cites it 2× “) criminal liability may be imposed upon "[a]ny person * * * who intentionally engages in fraud * * * while engaged in inducing or promoting the * * * sale * * * within or from this state of any securities * * * as defined in this article” (General Business Law § 352-c [6]…”
People Ex Rel. Schneiderman v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8339 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · cites it 6× “, as follows: In November 2012, the State Attorney General commenced this action alleging that defendants violated the Martin Act (General Business Law § 352 et seq.) and Executive Law § 63 (12) by committing multiple fraudulent and deceptive acts in connection with the…”
Assured Guar. (UK) Ltd. v. J.P. Morgan Inv. Mgmt. Inc., 962 N.E.2d 765 (NY 2011). “The Martin Act—New York’s “blue sky” law—“authorizes the Attorney General to investigate and enjoin fraudulent practices in the marketing of stocks, bonds and other securities within or from New York” (Kerusa, 12 NY3d at 243 , citing General Business Law §§ 352, 353). We have…”
CPC Int'l Inc. v. McKesson, 514 N.E.2d 116 (NY 1987). “eral would have broad regulatory and remedial powers to prevent fraudulent securities practices by investigating and intervening at the first indication of possible securities fraud on the public and, thereafter, if appropriate, to commence civil or criminal prosecution; and…”
First Energy Leasing Corp. v. Attorney-Gen., 496 N.E.2d 875 (NY 1986). · cites it 3× “We reject the Attorney-General’s argument that the broad powers accorded him under General Business Law § 352 (investigation by Attorney-General) override the explicit requirements of sections 354 and 355.”
People v. Coventry First LLC, 915 N.E.2d 616 (NY 2009). “The State’s six causes of action are based on (1) Executive Law § 63 (12), (2) General Business Law § 340 et seq. (the Donnelly Act), (3) General Business Law § 352 et seq.”
Ambac Assurance UK Ltd. v. J.P. Morgan Inv. Mgmt., Inc., 88 A.D.3d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · cites it 2× “The defendant further argued that Dimon’s statements, as reported in Fortune, did not concern the type of securities at issue here.”
Kralik v. 239 East 79th Street Owners Corp., 832 N.E.2d 707 (NY 2005). “Second, he may investigate and initiate civil or criminal actions where he believes there is fraud (see General Business Law §§ 352, 352-c, 353, 354).”
— N.Y. General Business Law § 352(c)(6) — 2 cases
Tyco Int'l Ltd. v. Walsh, 751 F. Supp. 2d 606 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
Tyco Int'l Ltd. v. Walsh, 870 F. Supp. 2d 327 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
— N.Y. General Business Law § 352(e) — 1 case
Aronov v. Khavinson, 2024 NY Slip Op 50130(U) (N.Y. Sup. Kings 2024).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.