People v. Greenberg
| Decision Date | 02 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 90,90 |
| Citation | 34 N.Y.S.3d 402,27 N.Y.3d 490,54 N.E.3d 74,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 04253 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, by Eric T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Maurice R. GREENBERG et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Armonk (David Boies of counsel), Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, New York City (Nicholas A. Gravante, Jr., Robert J. Dwyer and Amy L. Neuhardt of counsel), Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York City (John L. Gardiner of counsel), and Charles Fried, Cambridge, Massachusetts, of the Massachusetts bar, admitted pro hac vice, for Maurice R. Greenberg, appellant, and Kaye Scholer LLP, New York City (Vincent A. Sama and Catherine B. Schumacher of counsel), and Andrew M. Lawler, P.C., New York City (Andrew M. Lawler of counsel), for Howard I. Smith, appellant.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Barbara D. Underwood, Steven C. Wu and Claude S. Platton of counsel), for respondent.
Susan Ann Silverstein, AARP Foundation Litigation, Washington, D.C., for AARP, amicus curiae.
Anne–Valerie Mirko, General Counsel, North American Securities Administrators Association, Inc., Washington, D.C., for North American Securities Administrators Association, Inc., amicus curiae.
Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, D.C. (Andrew J. Pincus and Paul W. Hughes of counsel), for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and another, amici curiae.
STEIN
, J.
This appeal is the second to have come before us challenging the denial of motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this action, which was commenced in 2005 by the Attorney General under the Martin Act (General Business Law art. 23–A) and Executive Law § 63(12)
against defendants, two former officers of American International Group, Inc. As in the prior appeal, defendants challenge the availability of certain equitable relief. We again hold that the Attorney General's claims against defendants withstand summary judgment and, therefore, should proceed to trial.
The underlying facts of this matter are more fully set forth in our prior decision (21 N.Y.3d 439, 971 N.Y.S.2d 747, 994 N.E.2d 838 [2013]
), in which we rejected defendants' argument “that no basis exist[ed] for granting equitable relief ... [because] all such relief that could possibly be awarded has already been obtained in litigation brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which [defendants] settled in 2009” (id. at 447, 971 N.Y.S.2d 747, 994 N.E.2d 838 ). In addition, defendants had requested in that appeal that this Court determine, as a matter of law, that equitable relief was unavailable in this case under the Martin Act. Specifically, defendants argued that the Attorney General has no “ability to ask for disgorgement” because there was no “illegal gain[ ],” and the Attorney General could not demonstrate “some danger of continuing violation,” the showing defendants asserted was necessary to obtain injunctive relief under the act. In the face of these arguments, we were unable to “say as a matter of law that no equitable relief may be awarded” (21 N.Y.3d at 448, 971 N.Y.S.2d 747, 994 N.E.2d 838
), and we concluded that it was necessary for the lower courts to determine, in the first instance, whether the injunction sought by the Attorney General—a lifetime ban on defendants' participation in the securities industry and service as an officer or director of a public company—“would be a justifiable exercise of a court's discretion” (id. at 448, 971 N.Y.S.2d 747, 994 N.E.2d 838 ). We similarly concluded that the “availability” of any other equitable relief sought by the Attorney General—i.e., disgorgement—must initially be decided by the lower courts (id. ).
One month after this Court's prior decision was issued, defendants moved again for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. Defendants primarily argued that: the equitable relief sought was not warranted on the facts of this case; disgorgement is not an authorized remedy under the Martin Act or Executive Law § 63(12)
; and disgorgement is preempted by federal law. Supreme Court rejected those arguments and denied defendants' motion (43 Misc.3d 1229[A], 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 50840[U], 2014 WL 2442813 [2014] ), and the Appellate Division affirmed (127 A.D.3d 529, 529–530, 8 N.Y.S.3d 68 [1st Dept.2015] ). The Appellate Division thereafter granted defendants leave to appeal and certified the following question to this Court: “Was the order of the Supreme Court, as affirmed by this Court, properly made?”
Initially, we note that defendants may not relitigate the issues that were resolved in our prior decision (see People v. Rodriguez, 25 N.Y.3d 238, 243, 10 N.Y.S.3d 495, 32 N.E.3d 930 [2015]
; see generally
People v. Evans, 94 N.Y.2d 499, 502–503, 706 N.Y.S.2d 678, 727 N.E.2d 1232 [2000] ), or raise issues on appeal that were not preserved on the record for our review. Thus, the majority of their arguments regarding the availability of injunctive relief are not properly before us.
Turning to the first of defendants' arguments that are not beyond our review, we conclude that the Attorney General may obtain permanent injunctive relief under the Martin Act and Executive Law § 63(12)
upon a showing of a reasonable likelihood of a continuing violation based upon the totality of the circumstances (see People v. Lexington Sixty–First Assoc., 38 N.Y.2d 588, 598, 381 N.Y.S.2d 836, 345 N.E.2d 307 [1976]
; Securities & Exch. Commn. v. Management Dynamics, Inc., 515 F.2d 801, 807 [2d Cir.1975]
). “This is not a ‘run of the mill’ action for an injunction, but rather one authorized by remedial legislation, brought by the Attorney–General on behalf of the People of the State and for the purposes of preventing fraud and defeating exploitation” (Lexington Sixty–First, 38 N.Y.2d at 598, 381 N.Y.S.2d 836, 345 N.E.2d 307 ). “ ‘[T]he standards of the public interest not the requirements of private litigation measure the propriety and need for injunctive relief’ ” (Management Dynamics, 515 F.2d at 808, quoting Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 331, 64 S.Ct. 587, 88 L.Ed. 754 [1944] ). Therefore, we reject defendants' argument that the Attorney General must show irreparable harm in order to obtain a permanent injunction.
Defendants' reliance upon State of New York v. Fine, 72 N.Y.2d 967, 969, 534 N.Y.S.2d 357, 530 N.E.2d 1277 (1988)
—in which we held that the Attorney General must demonstrate irreparable harm to obtain a preliminary injunction under the Martin Act—is misplaced. Our holding in that case was grounded upon the interplay of General Business Law § 357, which incorporates the CPLR, and the relevant provision of the CPLR itself, which require a showing of irreparable injury before a preliminary injunction may be granted (see CPLR art 63; Fine, 72 N.Y.2d at 969, 534 N.Y.S.2d 357, 530 N.E.2d 1277 ). That holding is of no moment here, inasmuch as the CPLR has no similar provisions governing permanent injunctive relief and, in any event, Executive Law § 63(12) does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial