PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK LETITIA JAMES ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA WAYNE LAPIERRE (2023)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, by LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Defendant–Appellant, WAYNE LAPIERRE et al., Defendants.

1206

Decided: December 14, 2023

Kapnick, J.P., Friedman, González, O'Neill Levy, JJ.

Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, New York (Noah Peters of counsel), for appellant.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York (Matthew William Grieco of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joel M. Cohen, J.), entered October 2, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motion of defendant The National Rifle Association of America (the NRA) to dismiss the cause of action for breach of EPTL 8–1.4 (first cause of action) in the second amended verified complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleged in detail that the NRA failed to properly administer charitable assets, resulting in improper administration and diminution of property held for charitable purposes; engaged in waste and diversion of charitable assets; and retaliated against whistleblowers. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim under EPTL 8–1.4, which enhances New York Attorney General's enforcement powers and authorizes it to institute proceedings against trustees who fail to properly administer charitable assets (see Schneiderman v Lower Esopus Riv. Watch, Inc., 39 Misc.3d 1241[A], 2013 N.Y. Slip Op 50965[U], *26–27 [Sup Ct, Ulster County 2013] ).

We decline to address the NRA's arguments regarding potential remedies, including the potential appointment of a monitor. At this stage of the litigation, when Supreme Court has not even determined liability, it is too early to determine the propriety of potential equitable remedies. The only issue before the trial court was whether plaintiff had stated a claim upon which relief may be granted, which, as we have noted, it has done. In any event, whether particular equitable remedies would constitute a proper exercise of discretion is for Supreme Court to decide in the first instance (see People v. Greenberg, 21 NY3d 439, 448 [2013] ).

We have considered the NRA's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network