AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Judges

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, by ANDREW M. CUOMO, as Attorney General, Respondent-Appellant, v. H R BLOCK, INC., et al., Respondents, and H R BLOCK FINANCIAL ADVISORS, INC., Appellant-Respondent, et al., Defendants.

The court erred in rejecting, at this stage of the litigation, plaintiff's claim that the court obtained personal jurisdiction over Block, Inc. and Services through the actions of their subsidiaries in this state. Plaintiff's pleadings and accompanying documentation made a "sufficient start" to warrant further discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction ( see Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d 463, 467; Edelman v Taittinger, S.A., 298 AD2d 301, 302). We also find that the complaint was sufficiently specific to state a cause of action against Services ( see Bernstein v Kelso Co., 231 AD2d 314, 321-322).

The fraud claim against Advisors was sufficiently pleaded, since the scienter requirement was satisfied by the allegations that Advisors was aware that the Express IRAs were poor investments, yet continued to market them, without proper disclosure about the fees and extra expenses they would entail ( see Houbigant, Inc. v Deloitte Touche, 303 AD2d 92, 97).

The breach of fiduciary duty claim against Advisors was properly upheld. The complaint alleges sufficient facts establishing Advisors' fiduciary relationship with its Express IRA customers ( see EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs Co., 5 NY3d 11, 22).

The court properly rejected defendants' argument that the Attorney General has no authority to recover on behalf of non-New York residents in this case. New York's vital interest in securing an honest marketplace in which to transact business was threatened when defendants used a New York business to complete the deceptive transactions at issue here by administering their money market fund, and advised customers that the New York business would be their "authorized agent" ( see Matter of People v Telehublink Corp., 301 AD2d 1006, 1009-1010).

The court properly declined to compel arbitration of even the victim-specific claims ( see EEOC v Waffle House, Inc., 534 US 279; People v Coventry First LLC, 52 AD3d 345).

We have considered the parties' remaining contentions for affirmative relief and find them unavailing.

[ See 16 Misc 3d 1124(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 51562(U).]

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. H R BLOCK
(Jan 6, 2009)