Marshall Investments Corp. v. Harrah's Operating Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marshall Investments Corp. v. Harrah's Operating Co.

82 A.D.3d 515, 918 N.Y.2d 451

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 515 (Marshall Investments Corp. v. Harrah's Operating Co.) 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

Marshall Investments Corp. v. Harrah's Operating Co., 82 A.D.3d 515, 918 N.Y.2d 451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The subject pledge agreement did not constitute a management contract which required the approval of the National Indian Gaming Commission (25 CFR 502.15; cf. Machal, Inc. v Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, 387 F Supp 2d 659, 666-667 [2005]). However, because it changes the Tribe’s obligations, requiring them to make payments into escrow, and alters their liabilities, giving the right to sue and a veto over certain modifications of a separate management agreement to plaintiffs, the pledge agreement is a modification or assignment of rights under .the management agreement. As such, it is void because it was never approved by the commission (25 CFR 533.7). Since the underlying contract is void, plaintiffs cannot recover for tortious interference with that contract (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 424 [1996]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Renwick, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

The subject pledge agreement did not constitute a management contract which required the approval of the National Indian Gaming Commission (25 CFR 502.15; cf. Machal, Inc. v Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, 387 F Supp 2d 659, 666-667 [2005]). However, because it changes the Tribe’s obligations, requiring them to make payments into escrow, and alters their liabilities, giving the right to sue and a veto over certain modifications of a separate management agreement to plaintiffs, the pledge agreement is a modification or assignment of rights under .the management agreement. As such, it is void because it was never approved by the commission (25 CFR 533.7). Since the underlying contract is void, plaintiffs cannot recover for tortious interference with that contract (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 424 [1996]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Renwick, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 515, 918 N.Y.2d 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshall-investments-corp-v-harrahs-operating-co-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack