From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Gonkjur Associates v. Abrams

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 10, 1983
58 N.Y.2d 878 (N.Y. 1983)

Summary

noting that the attorney general has "exceedingly broad—indeed, inquisitorial—powers under the Martin Act" to investigate "all kinds of fraud incident to the sale of securities and commodities and to seek to enjoin such acts"

Summary of this case from In re Inquiry by Schneiderman

Opinion

Decided February 10, 1983

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, SOLOMON KATZ, J.

Steven R. Lapidus for appellant.

Robert Abrams, Attorney-General ( Gerald Hurwitz of counsel), respondent pro se.



On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division ( 88 A.D.2d 854; see, also, Matter of Gonkjur Assoc. v Abrams, 57 N.Y.2d 853; and Matter of Edge Ho Holding Corp., 256 N.Y. 374, 381-382).

Concur: Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG, MEYER and SIMONS.


Summaries of

Matter of Gonkjur Associates v. Abrams

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 10, 1983
58 N.Y.2d 878 (N.Y. 1983)

noting that the attorney general has "exceedingly broad—indeed, inquisitorial—powers under the Martin Act" to investigate "all kinds of fraud incident to the sale of securities and commodities and to seek to enjoin such acts"

Summary of this case from In re Inquiry by Schneiderman
Case details for

Matter of Gonkjur Associates v. Abrams

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of GONKJUR ASSOCIATES et al., Appellants, v. ROBERT ABRAMS…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 10, 1983

Citations

58 N.Y.2d 878 (N.Y. 1983)
460 N.Y.S.2d 528
447 N.E.2d 76

Citing Cases

In re Inquiry by Schneiderman

See Kerusa Co. LLC v. W10Z/515 Real Estate Ltd. P'ship, 12 N.Y.3d 236, 244 (2009) ("[T]he specific purpose of…

James v. IFINEX Inc.

The Court does not believe that language, by itself, transforms this case for jurisdictional purposes into a…