Matter of People v. Ackerman

2 Citing cases

  1. State of New York v. Solil

    128 Misc. 2d 767 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1985)   Cited 23 times
    Upholding § 63 agreement requiring landlord to pay rent refunds even where underlying statute gave housing commissioner exclusive jurisdiction to sue landlord for rent overcharges, because landlord who "entered into that agreement...waived any objection it might have had to the Attorney-General's jurisdiction to investigate rent overcharge complaints"

    The Omnibus Housing Act does not invest the DHCR with authority to adjudicate persistent or repeated fraud or illegality. The right of the Attorney-General to exercise his powers under Executive Law § 63 (12) over such activities engaged by those who own, operate and manage residential buildings as a business is well established ( see, Matter of People v Ackerman, 24 Misc.2d 83; State of New York v Spodex, NYLJ, Mar. 16, 1982, p 6, col 2, mod 89 A.D.2d 835; Matter of Wiener v Abrams, 119 Misc.2d 970). Moreover, there is nothing in the Omnibus Housing Act which prevents or conflicts with the Attorney-General's enforcement prerogatives.

  2. Matter of People v. MacDonald

    69 Misc. 2d 456 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1972)   Cited 3 times

    Generally, this subdivision has been construed quite broadly so that its salutary provisions are applied to all business activity accompanied by repeated acts of illegality (cf. Matter of People v. Ackerman, 24 Misc.2d 83, 84). Commercial maritime traffic in Hell Gate is such a "business activity" which must be considered to be within the sphere and the protection of the subdivision 12 of section 63 Exec. of the Executive Law. Consequently, the Attorney-General may, as has been alluded to above, properly seek to enjoin repeated acts that are suspected to be illegal under the Navigation Law.