MacKay Shields LLC v. Sea Containers, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

MacKay Shields LLC v. Sea Containers, Ltd.

300 A.D.2d 165, 751 N.Y.S.2d 485, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12458

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 19, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 165 (MacKay Shields LLC v. Sea Containers, Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MacKay Shields LLC v. Sea Containers, Ltd., 300 A.D.2d 165, 751 N.Y.S.2d 485, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered July 13, 2001, dismissing the complaint without prejudice, and bringing up for review an or[166]*166der, same court and Justice, entered June 21, 2001, which granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 for the relief afforded in the judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the June 21, 2001 order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

Standing to sue upon the indentures which plaintiffs seek to enforce is, pursuant to the indentures, expressly reserved to “holders.” The indentures define a “holder” as one in whose name a senior note is registered. Inasmuch as it is undisputed that plaintiffs are not registered holders, they are without standing to sue, regardless of whether they are beneficial holders (see Caplan v Unimax Holdings Corp., 188 AD2d 325, 326). Friedman v Airlift Intl. (44 AD2d 459) is not to the contrary. In Friedman, the plaintiffs sued upon underlying negotiable instruments, not upon the indentures pursuant to which they were issued, as is the case here. Having premised their action upon the indentures, plaintiffs are subject to the limitations which the indentures impose upon their right to relief.

We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Ellerin, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered July 13, 2001, dismissing the complaint without prejudice, and bringing up for review an or[166]*166der, same court and Justice, entered June 21, 2001, which granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 for the relief afforded in the judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the June 21, 2001 order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

Standing to sue upon the indentures which plaintiffs seek to enforce is, pursuant to the indentures, expressly reserved to “holders.” The indentures define a “holder” as one in whose name a senior note is registered. Inasmuch as it is undisputed that plaintiffs are not registered holders, they are without standing to sue, regardless of whether they are beneficial holders (see Caplan v Unimax Holdings Corp., 188 AD2d 325, 326). Friedman v Airlift Intl. (44 AD2d 459) is not to the contrary. In Friedman, the plaintiffs sued upon underlying negotiable instruments, not upon the indentures pursuant to which they were issued, as is the case here. Having premised their action upon the indentures, plaintiffs are subject to the limitations which the indentures impose upon their right to relief.

We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Ellerin, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 165, 751 N.Y.S.2d 485, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mackay-shields-llc-v-sea-containers-ltd-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack