Exhibit,Appendix: People Of The State Of New York, By Letitia James, Attorney General Of The State Of New York v. Abraham Operations Associates Llc Dba Beth Abraham Center For Rehabilitation And Nursing, Delaware Operations Associates Llc Dba Buffalo Center For Rehabilitation And Nursing, Hollis Operating Co Llc Dba Holliswood Center For Rehabilitation And Healthcare, Schnur Operations Associates Llc Dba Martine Center For Rehabilitation And Nursing, Light Property Holdings Associates Llc, Delaware Real Property Associates Llc, Hollis Real Estate Co Llc, Light Operational Holdings Associates Llc, Light Property Holdings Ii Associates Llc, Centers For Care Llc Dba Centers Health Care, Cfsc Downstate Llc, Bis Funding Capital Llc, Skilled Staffing Llc, Kenneth Rozenberg, Daryl Hagler, Beth Rozenberg, Jeffrey Sicklick, Leo Lerner, Reuven Kaufman, Amir Abramchik, David Greenberg, Elliot Kahan, Sol Blumenfeld, Aron Gittleson, Aharon Lantzitsky, Jonathan Hagler, Mordechai Moti Hellman

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/14/2023 09:25 AM         INDEX NO. 451549/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 727                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/14/2023




                        EXHIBIT 3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/14/2023 09:25 AM                                INDEX NO. 451549/2023
                ATTORNEY GENERAL'S LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 727            1985-1986                          57-_4107RECEIVED   NYSCEF: 07/14/2023
     Senate $                 (No. 26-85)
                    Attorney General Robert Abrams
                                                       Assembly
                                                                      /of-2_
                    The Capitol, Albany, NY 12224
                       /it   (518) 474-7134            By:

L   W    DEP .  T         r  8
    TITLE: AN ACT to amend the executive law, in relation to issuance
                   of subpoenas by the attorney general


     DESCRIPTION: This bill amends Executive Law, S 63(12), to make
     clear that the Attorney General's authority to issue a subpoena
     during the course of an investigation into fraudulent business
     practices does not terminate or abate upon commencement of an
     action or proceeding brought pursuant to the Executive Law.

     EFFECTIVE DATE: Immediately.

     PURPOSE: This bill would allow the Attorney General to issue a
     subpoena after commencing an action or proceeding pursuant to
     Executive Law, S 63(12). At present, Executive Law, S 63(12)
     authorizes the Attorney General, in connection with an
     investigation of fraud and illegality in the conduct of business,
     "to take proof and make a determination of the relevant facts and
     to issue subpoenas in accordance with the civil practice law and
     rules." The authorization is limited to an investigation "in
     connection with (a] proposed application" for an injunction or
     restitution. This bill eliminates the limitation on when the
     subpoena may be issued.

     LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: First introduced in 1983, this bill passed
     the Assembly in 1984 (A. 6734).

     FISCAL IMPACT: None.

     STATEMENT IN SUPPORT: This bill would harmonize the Attorney
     General's subpoena power in consumer protection cases with his
     already existing subpoena power in antitrust and securities
     investigations. Under both the Donnelly Antitrust Act and the
     Martin Act, the Attorney General's subpoena power does "not abate
     or terminate by reason of any action or proceeding brought by the
     attorney general under" those acts. (General Business Law, SS 343
     and 352(2).) I4 contrast, when the Attorney General investigates
     and seeks to enjoin consumer fraud, his subpoena power abates as
     soon as he commences a statutory proceeding.
     This bill would enable the Attorney General, in cases of alleged
     consumer fraud, to more adequately investigate complaints brought
     to his attention after he commences a statutory action or
     proceeding. This change in. the law is needed to respond to civil
     practice developments under Executive Law, S 63(12). Section
     63(12) was "* * * intended as an expeditious measure to prevent the
     perpetration of continuing frauds * * *"   People v B.C.
     Associates, 22 Misc 2d 43, 45 (Sup Ct, New York Co, 1959). Thus,
     the Attorney General can seek a permanent injunction on as few as
     five days' notice to the respondent. Since the statute permits
     such a summary proceeding, there has often been little need for
     authority to continue to issue subpoenas in connection with the
     respondent's further wrongdoings.
     In practice, however, with very little effort on the part of a
     respondent, S 63(12) can give rise to protracted litigation. CPLR
     Article 4 ("Special Proceedings") governs section 63(12)
     proceedings. Under CPLR 404(a), the respondent may make a
     cross-motion to dismiss the Attorney General's petition, as a
     matter of law. Courts have normally treated such motions to
     dismiss as they are treated in plenary actions; pending a decision
     on the motion, the respondent does not have to answer the petition,
                                    t119 0005
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/14/2023 09:25 AM                INDEX NO. 451549/2023
NYSCEFA.G.
       DOC. Program
            NO. 727   No. 26-85                                       2. 07/14/2023
                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF:
 t"ii 1 I.
     and
     -   if the court denies the motion to dismiss, the court will grant
     additional time to answer. In reality, the motion to dismiss can
     remain pending before the court for many months. During that time,
     consumers may file additional or related complaints against the
     respondent, but the Attorney General is handicapped in his
     investigation of them, since his subpoena power abated when he
     commenced the proceeding. Harmonizing the subpoena provisions of
     Executive Law, S 63(12) with comparable provisions in the Martin
     and Donnelly Acts would eliminate this unforeseen and anomalous
     result.
     The courts have long upheld both the constitutionality and
     propriety of the Attorney General's post-indictment and post-filing
     subpoenas. Matter of Hoyt v Attorney General, 258 NY 569 (1932);
     Matter of Grandview Dairyw Lefkowitz, 76 AD2d 776 (1st Dept,
     1980); State of N.Y. v Mobil Oil Corp., 40 AD2d 369 (1st Dept,
     1973), affd 33 NY2d 627 (1973); Deliwood Foods, Inc. v Abrams, 109
     Misc 2d 263, 267 (Sup Ct, Bronx Co, 1981). These courts have
     recognized the Legislature's intention that the Attorney General
     continue an investigation, as warranted, notwithstanding his
     commencement of a proceeding challenging some acts and practices of
     a respondent.




                                        ~ 0t..0 e,