IN RE: The GROUP U.S. MANAGEMENT LLC (2026)

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Cohen, J.), entered March 25, 2026, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the petition pursuant to CPLR 2304 to quash or modify the geographical scope of a non-judicial subpoena duces tecum issued by respondent, and granted respondent's cross-motion to compel, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied the motion to modify the subpoena to exclude documents concerning online reviews for restaurants outside New York because the “information sought bears a reasonable relationship to the subject matter under investigation and the public interest to be served” (Matter of American Dental Coop. v Attorney–General of State of N.Y., 127 AD2d 274, 280 [1st Dept 1987] ).  The documents sought in the challenged requests could foreseeably uncover evidence that petitioner, a New York limited liability company, used New York-based entities to facilitate transactions concerning deceptive online reviews even for its out-of-state restaurants, some of which were incorporated under New York addresses.  Furthermore, petitioner's agent used email addresses with a .nyc top level domain name, indicating a New York location, to communicate with customers concerning deceptive reviews.  The Attorney General may enforce Executive Law § 63(12) and General Business Law § 349 on behalf of out-of-state residents when entities use New York addresses to complete deceptive transactions (see People v H & R Block, Inc., 58 AD3d 415, 417 [1st Dept 2009];  Matter of People v Telehublink Corp., 301 AD2d 1006, 1009–1010 [3d Dept 2003] ).

Based on those connections to New York, it cannot be said that “the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious” (Matter of Libre by Nexus, Inc. v Underwood, 181 AD3d 488, 488 [1st Dept 2020] [internal quotation marks omitted).  Unlike Matter of People v Sirius XM Radio Inc. (243 AD3d 424 [1st Dept 2025] ), the procedural posture of this case makes it unclear that the subpoena requests will yield evidence consisting exclusively of transactions with no connection to New York.