New York Consolidated Laws
N.Y. General Business Law § 353 (2026)
Action by attorney-general
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NY-LEGnysenate.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 353. Action by attorney-general. 1. Whenever the attorney-general shall believe from evidence satisfactory to him that any person, partnership, corporation, company, trust or association has engaged in, is engaged or is about to engage in any of the practices or transactions heretofore referred to as and declared to be fraudulent practices, he may bring an action in the name and on behalf of the people of the state of New York against such person, partnership, corporation, company, trust or association, and any other person or persons theretofore concerned in or in any way participating in or about to participate in such fraudulent practices, to enjoin such person, partnership, corporation, company, trust or association and such other person or persons from continuing such fraudulent practices or engaging therein or doing any act or acts in furtherance thereof or, if the attorney-general should believe from such evidence that such person, partnership, corporation, company, trust or association actually has or is engaged in any such fraudulent practice, he may include in such action an application to enjoin permanently such person, partnership, corporation, company, trust or association, and such other person or persons as may have been or may be concerned with or in any way participating in such fraudulent practice, from selling or offering for sale to the public within this state, as principal, broker or agent, or otherwise, any securities issued or to be issued. In said action an order or a judgment may be entered awarding the relief applied for or so much thereof as the court may deem proper. Upon a showing by the attorney-general in his application for a permanent injunction hereunder that the defendant named in the action or an officer thereof has refused to be sworn or to be examined or to answer a material question or to produce a book or paper relevant to the inquiry when duly ordered so to do by the officer or judge duly conducting an inquiry into the subject matter forming the basis of the application for such injunction, such refusal shall be prima facie proof that such defendant is or has been engaged in fraudulent practices as set forth in such application and a permanent injunction may issue from the supreme court without any further showing by the attorney-general. In such an action, the court may award to the plaintiff a sum not in excess of two thousand dollars as an additional allowance. 2. Upon a showing by the attorney-general in an application for an injunction that any person engaged in the purchase, sale, offer to purchase or sell, issuance, exchange, promotion, negotiation, advertisement or distribution within this state of any security or securities, either as principal, partner, officer, agent, employee or otherwise, has ever been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction in any state or country of any felony; or of any other criminal offense by any such court, whether or not constituting a felony, involving securities, the supreme court after a hearing may issue a permanent injunction awarding the relief applied for, or so much thereof as the court may deem proper, against such person shown to have been so convicted, in the form and manner provided for in subdivision one of this section in case of one who actually has or is engaged in any fraudulent practice. 3. Upon a showing by the attorney general that a fraudulent practice as defined by this article has occurred, he may include in an action under this article an application to direct restitution of any moneys or property obtained directly or indirectly by any such fraudulent practice. 4. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this article by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1987–2016 · leading case: Assured Guar. (UK) Ltd. v. J.P. Morgan Inv. Mgmt. Inc., 962 N.E.2d 765 (NY 2011).
Assured Guar. (UK) Ltd. v. J.P. Morgan Inv. Mgmt. Inc., 962 N.E.2d 765 (NY 2011). “When the Martin Act was originally adopted in 1921, “the primary weapon afforded to the Attorney General to combat securities fraud was that of injunctive relief’ (Mihaly and Kaufmann, Securities, Commodities and Other Investments, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 19, General…”
State v. Rachmani Corp., 525 N.E.2d 704 (NY 1988). “On defendants’ appeal in an enforcement action brought by the Attorney-General under the antifraud provisions of the *721 Martin Act we must decide whether the failure to mention an unsatisfied precondition to a cooperative conversion of an apartment house constituted fraud…”
Matter of People of the State of N.Y. by Eric T. Schneiderman v. Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC, 137 A.D.3d 409 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). “Indeed, the *418 language of section 63 (12) parallels the language of the Martin Act, * under which the Attorney General is undisputedly authorized to bring a standalone cause of action for fraudulent conduct in the securities context (compare General Business Law § 353 [1]…”
Kerusa Co. v. W10Z/515 Real Est. Ltd., 906 N.E.2d 1049 (NY 2009). “4 [b]); and the requirements for offering plan amendments, including the direction that “[a]n amendment must include a representation that all material changes of facts or circumstances affecting the property or the offering are included unless the changes were described in…”
State v. Justin, 3 Misc. 3d 973 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003). “Introduction The Attorney General on behalf of the State of New York brought the instant action pursuant to General Business Law § 353, Executive Law § 63 (12), and General Business Law § 349-c.”
State v. Metz, 241 A.D.2d 192 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). “The Attorney-General commenced this action on September 13, 1994, pursuant to General Business Law § 353, seeking, among other things, to permanently enjoin the defendants from engaging in the public offer of real estate securities within and from the State, of New York and…”
People v. Ernst & Young LLP, 114 A.D.3d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). “Defendant argues that the remedies provided in both General Business Law § 353 (the Martin Act) and Executive Law § 63 do not include disgorgement.”
People v. World Interactive Gaming Corp., 185 Misc. 2d 852 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1999). “As for the Attorney General’s request for restitution, penalties, and costs, which are available under Executive Law § 63 (12) and General Business Law § 353 (3), this court finds the circumstances warrant awarding them in this case.”
State v. First Investors Corp., 156 Misc. 2d 209 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1992). “The amended complaint would also add a demand for judgment requiring that the non-Fund defendants make restitution and pay dam *213 ages pursuant to General Business Law § 353 (3); that The Contested Transactions be adjudged fraudulent; that the non-Fund defendants be restrained…”
Abrams v. Long Beach Oceanfront Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 136 Misc. 2d 137 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1987). “General Business Law § 354 authorizes the Attorney-General to apply for an order initiating an investigation involving the sale of securities (before the court or a designated Referee) prior to commencing an action under General Business Law § 353.”
People Ex Rel. Schneiderman v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8339 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). “General Business Law § 353 (1) states, “Whenever the attorney-general shall believe .”
15 East 11th Apt. Corp. v. H. Henry Elghanayan, 220 A.D.2d 295 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). “The broad enforcement remedies available to the State under the Martin Act (General Business Law art 23-A) incorporate actions based upon the Attorney-General’s belief that an entity "has engaged in, is engaged or is about to engage in any of the practices or transactions…”
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.