Opinion
December 23, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.).
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 (see, State of New York v Princess Prestige Co., 42 N.Y.2d 104, 107; see also, CPLR 409 [b]; Matter of State of New York v Daro Chartours, 72 A.D.2d 872).
With regard to respondents' motion to renew, the additional "facts" consisted primarily of the arguments made by respondents' corporate counsel in response to the Attorney-General's investigation, and the motion was properly denied.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.