When New York Sues in Its Own Name: What "The People of the State of New York" Means in Civil Litigation
Kenney Shelton Liptak Nowak LLP | Civil Litigation Update
By: Thomas E. Liptak, Esq. | Founding Partner
Most people associate "The People of the State of New York" with criminal court, where it names the prosecution in every indictment from petit larceny to murder. Fewer recognize that the same caption appears with regularity on the civil docket, naming the plaintiff in some of the state's most consequential business fraud, antitrust, and consumer protection litigation.
Two State Captions, Two Different Roles
New York's civil justice system uses "The People of the State of New York" and "State of New York" to mean different things, and the distinction is not stylistic.
"The People of the State of New York" is the caption New York uses when it sues in its sovereign capacity, asserting the state's own interest in enforcing the law or protecting the public rather than seeking a private remedy for a specific injured party. This is the caption used in criminal prosecutions, and it is also the caption the Attorney General uses in a substantial body of civil enforcement litigation.
"State of New York" is the caption used when the state itself is a defendant, typically in tort or contract litigation in the Court of Claims, New York's court of exclusive jurisdiction over money damage claims against the state.
A practitioner defending a client against a subpoena or civil complaint captioned "People of the State of New York v. [Client]" is not facing a criminal matter by virtue of that caption alone. The distinction turns on the relief sought and the statute invoked, not the name on the pleading.
The Statutory Basis for Civil Actions by the People
The Attorney General's authority to sue civilly in the name of the People rests on specific statutory grants, the most significant of which is Executive Law § 63(12). That provision authorizes the Attorney General to apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the Supreme Court for an order enjoining a business engaged in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts, and to obtain restitution, damages, and cancellation of the business's authority to operate in the state.
Executive Law § 63(12) has been the vehicle for many of the Attorney General's highest-profile civil fraud actions, including litigation against major energy companies over climate-related disclosures and against businesses accused of persistent consumer fraud.
Other statutory grants operate alongside § 63(12):
The Martin Act (General Business Law Article 23-A) gives the Attorney General broad civil and criminal authority over securities fraud, and is frequently invoked together with § 63(12) in financial fraud litigation.
The Donnelly Act (General Business Law §§ 340 et seq.), New York's state antitrust statute, authorizes the Attorney General to bring civil actions in the name of the People against anticompetitive conduct. Under General Business Law § 342-b specifically, the Attorney General may bring parens patriae actions seeking damages on behalf of New York consumers and businesses injured by antitrust violations.
Executive Law § 63-C, sometimes called the Tweed law after the Tammany Hall figure whose conduct prompted it, authorizes an action by the People for the recovery of public funds illegally received or disposed of by a public officer, without requiring a request from any local official.
Various environmental, consumer protection, and civil rights statutes contain their own express authorizations for Attorney General enforcement actions brought in the People's name.
Who Represents the People
The Attorney General is often described within the office itself as the "People's Lawyer," reflecting a dual role: chief legal officer for the state's executive branch and legal agencies, and independent guardian of the public's legal interests in matters ranging from consumer protection to environmental enforcement.
Civil enforcement actions in the People's name are handled through the Attorney General's substantive bureaus (the Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection, the Antitrust Bureau, the Environmental Protection Bureau, and others), as well as the office's regional offices and specialized units such as the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit.
This is distinct from the Attorney General's role defending the state itself. When the State of New York is sued as a defendant in the Court of Claims, Assistant Attorneys General represent the state in that capacity, too, but as defense counsel rather than as counsel bringing an affirmative claim. The same office, therefore, appears on both sides of very different kinds of litigation, depending on whether New York is the plaintiff asserting a sovereign interest or the defendant answering a claim for money damages.
Separately, in the criminal context, the People are represented by county District Attorneys in the ordinary course, with the Attorney General's office stepping in only where specific statutory authority or a referral applies.
What Distinguishes Litigation Against the People
A civil action brought by the People carries procedural characteristics that an ordinary private plaintiff's lawsuit does not:
The relief sought is often public rather than compensatory. Executive Law § 63(12) actions typically seek injunctive relief, civil penalties, and restitution running to injured consumers or the state itself, not damages payable to a private litigant. The Attorney General does not need to show individualized reliance or injury the way a private fraud plaintiff would in many circumstances, because the action vindicates the public interest in honest business practice.
Expedited procedural mechanisms are available. Executive Law § 63(12) actions can proceed as special proceedings, which move on a shortened timeline compared to a plenary action, and can include ex parte relief where warranted. That compressed procedural posture is one of the features that makes § 63(12) actions a particularly effective enforcement tool from the state's perspective, and a particularly fast-moving one for defense counsel to respond to.
Standing and pleading burdens differ from private litigation. Because the People sue to enforce a public right rather than remedy a private wrong, courts have generally not required the same showing of individualized harm that a private plaintiff must establish. This lowers certain threshold barriers that a defendant might otherwise raise against a private class action or individual fraud claim.
The statute of limitations can also work differently than it would in a private lawsuit. Actions by the Attorney General under the Martin Act or Executive Law § 63(12) generally proceed under their own limitations framework, and the interaction between these provisions and the timing rules that would apply to an analogous private claim is a fact-specific question best evaluated with counsel early in a matter.
Practical Takeaways
Confirm the actual nature of a matter captioned "People of the State of New York" before assuming its posture. The caption alone does not indicate whether the matter is criminal or civil, and civil enforcement actions under Executive Law § 63(12) or the Martin Act have their own distinct procedural rules that differ meaningfully from both criminal defense and ordinary civil defense practice.
Recognize that responding to a People-captioned civil enforcement action often means responding to a subpoena or a special proceeding on a compressed timeline, not to a conventional summons and complaint. Early engagement with the specific statutory vehicle invoked is critical to assessing exposure and available defenses.
Distinguish state-as-plaintiff enforcement matters from state-as-defendant Court of Claims matters when advising clients or colleagues, since these involve different courts, different counsel roles within the Attorney General's office, and entirely different procedural rules.
Watch for parens patriae and multi-statute enforcement actions that combine, for example, Martin Act and Executive Law § 63(12) claims, since these actions can involve both the securities-specific remedies of the Martin Act and the broader injunctive and restitutionary relief available under § 63(12).
Kenney Shelton Liptak Nowak LLP represents businesses, municipalities, and individuals in complex civil litigation throughout New York, including matters involving state regulatory and enforcement action. For questions about how these principles may affect pending or future matters, contact our civil litigation team.
