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). “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). “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). “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). “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). “) 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). “, 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). “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). “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.