In Kramer v. W10Z/515 Real Estate Ltd. Partnership (44 AD3d 457, 844 N.Y.S.2d 18 1st Dept 2007, revd 12 NY3d 236, 906 N.E.2d 1049, 879 N.Y.S.2d 17 [2009], the appellate court noted that, because the Martin Act was enacted to protect the public from fraudulent practices, to construe the Act as having "abolished the right of purchasers of condominium and cooperative interests . . . to sue sellers for common-law fraud is to give the Martin Act a construction that is antithetical to its remedial purpose." Id. at 460. The Kramer court relied on the Court of Appeals' decision in CPC Intl. v. McKesson Corp. (70 N.Y.2d 268, 514 N.E.2d 116, 519 N.Y.S.2d 804 1987), which held that even though there is no private right of action for violation of the Martin Act, particularly as to section 352-c involving securities fraud, a plaintiff was permitted to proceed with common-law fraud claims against the defendants who allegedly committed fraudulent practices. Based on the research performed to date, Kramer is the latest ruling by the Appellate Division, First Department, which determined that the Martin Act does not preclude a private cause of action based on common-law fraud, even though the Attorney General is empowered to prosecute all civil and criminal claims (including fraud claims, which do not require the Attorney General to allege or prove scienter or intentional fraud) under the Act.