The conclusory, self-serving explanations offered by respondent Amram failed to rebut the affidavits submitted on behalf of the 49 complainants demonstrating a repeated pattern of misrepresentation in violation of Executive Law § 63 (12), and the use of the two corporate entities to extract fees in excess of the statutory maximum set out in General Business Law § 394-c
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.