From what I read in the section about the New York...

...State legislative history, I'm not sure this is precedential. I haven't scrutinized it super intensively, but NYS has prosecuted financial fraud on behalf of the "people of New York" before. Of course, prosecutorial discretion always enters into any decision to charge.

Here's a snippet from Engoron's most recent decision. quoting his earlier decision on motions to dismiss:

“In varying contexts, courts have held that a state has a quasi sovereign interest in protecting the integrity of the marketplace.” People v Grasso, 11 NY3d 64, 69 at n 4 (2008); People v Coventry First LLC, 52 AD3d 345, 346 (1st Dept 2008) (“the claim pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12) constituted proper exercises of the State’s regulation of businesses within its borders in the interest of securing an honest marketplace”); People v Amazon.com, Inc., 550 F Supp 3d 122, 130-131 (SDNY 2021) (“[T]he State’s statutory interest under § 63(12) encompasses the prevention of either ‘fraudulent or illegal’ business activities. Misconduct that is illegal for reasons other than fraud still implicates the government’s interests in guaranteeing a marketplace that adheres to standards of fairness …”).

__________________

As for appraised values, I have told clients that the market value definition says that it is "the most probable" price that would have been paid as of a given value date. So if we think of the normal distribution curve, my point-value estimate is at the very top. Could it be 5% more, or 5% less? Yes. Could it be 36% more (e.g., $735 million versus $540 million)? Uh...nope.