pointed out that the statute was intended to bring only the most serious, broad-based frauds into the federal courts. See id. at 489-92. However, even taking this restrictive rule into account, the United States Supreme Court has held that even a single racketeering scheme may provide the basis for RICO liability. See HJ Inc., 492 U.S. at 236, 109 S.Ct. 2893. Similarly, while courts have stated that a single-victim scheme that rises to the level of a RICO pattern is “rare,” Sathianathan v. Smith Barney, Inc., No. 04-cv-7122, 2007 WL 576097, *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2007), other district courts, as well as the Second Circuit, have held that a single-victim scheme may form a RICO pattern when the predicate acts are numerous and extensive. Jacobson v. Cooper, 882 F.2d 717, 720 (2d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); State Wide Photocopy, Corp. v. Tokai Fin.
holding that a nineyear scheme by two defendants to defraud a single plaintiff of various real estate holdings constituted a rico pattern holding that similar conduct by codefendant of grae and rybicki satisfied the elements of commercial bribery  and scheme to defraud holding twelve acts designed to defraud only one victim on one occasion insufficient to allege pattern holding in a civil rico case based upon predicate acts of mail and wire fraud that the plaintiff must plead a material misrepresentation of fact that was calculated or intended to deceive persons of reasonable prudence and comprehension and that the plaintiff relied upon that material misrepresentation to establish the fraud statutes requisite scheme to defraud holding that the statute requires actual intent to hinder delay or defraud creditors or the trustee constructive intent to defraud does not suffice