[Eagle Forgotten]

You write: "The State of New York, 1. does not have standing. There is no actionable case or controversy involving the Plaintiff in this suit. There are no allegations that Trump defrauded the State of NY by using inflated valuations...."

A private litigant would need to show such a loss, but the State doesn't. Under New York law, the State (through the Attorney General) has standing even if no one suffered a loss.

This was one of the issues Trump and the other defendants raised in an earlier appeal in this case. The appellate court agreed with the appeal on some issues, such as dismissing all the claims against Ivanka. On the standing issue, however, the court ruled for the Attorney General. The applicable law is Executive Law § 63(12), which gives powers to the AG that aren't available to private litigants. In rejecting Trump's argument about standing, the appellate court said:

The Attorney General is not suing on behalf of a private individual, but is vindicating the state's sovereign interest in enforcing its legal code — including its civil legal code — within its jurisdiction (see Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 US 592, 601 [1982]; see also People v Coventry First LLC, 52 AD3d 345, 346 [1st Dept 2008] [finding that claims including a claim under Executive Law § 63(12) "constituted proper exercises of the State's regulation of businesses within its borders in the interest of securing an honest marketplace"], affd 13 NY3d 108 [2009]). We have already held that the failure to allege losses does not require dismissal of a claim for disgorgement under Executive Law § 63(12) (see People v Ernst & Young LLP, 114 AD3d 569, 569-570 [1st Dept 2014]). Finally, in authorizing the Attorney General to sue for any repeated or persistent fraud or illegality, the Legislature necessarily "invested that party with authority to seek relief in court" (Matter of World Trade Ctr. Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litig, 30 NY3d 377, 384 [2017]; see Silver v Pataki, 96 NY2d 532, 537-538 [2001]).

Full decision here (emphasis added): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-first-department/2023/index-no-452564-22-appeal-no-553-case-no-2023-00717.html

You may think this is a bad law. As the citations indicate, though, it's been the law in New York since before Trump came down the escalator.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I wonder if Leticia demanded damages for “pain and suffering” because Dems go nuts when they see the name “Trump.”

[jpp113]

It is a bad law. It is the State giving itself powers in a civil context which citizens do not have in a civil context. This means the State gave itself an unfair advantage to the detriment of its citizens. Violates (on its face and as applied) the 14th amendment of the US Constitution and the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

We have already held that the failure to allege losses does not require dismissal of a claim for disgorgement under Executive Law § 63(12)

Sounds like a law that could easily be used for political purposes, especially with morons like Engoron and James in charge. But it's not by any means the only bad law on the books.

[jpp113]

"authorizing the Attorney General to sue for any repeated or persistent fraud or illegality" This absolutely violates Due Process, because it does not require the State to prove the underlying alleged repeated or persistent fraud or illegality as a predicate for the AG to sue under the Statute.

[gloryblaze]

Thanks for the informative post!

As the citations indicate, though, it's been the law in New York since before Trump came down the escalator.

That is so painful to accept because President Trump's business practices haven't changed, and, had he not come down the escalator, as a Republican, no less, there would be no court case. Just like there aren't any such cases anywhere else in the savage big league of New York real estate.