MK Link Investment Partnership v. WSW Capital, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

MK Link Investment Partnership v. WSW Capital, Inc.

96 A.D.3d 575, 946 N.Y.S.2d 474

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

DecidedJune 19, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A.D.3d 575 (MK Link Investment Partnership v. WSW Capital, Inc.) 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

MK Link Investment Partnership v. WSW Capital, Inc., 96 A.D.3d 575, 946 N.Y.S.2d 474 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Harold G. Leventhal, Special Ref.), entered December 1, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from, permitted a double recovery, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and so much of the order and judgment as permits petitioner MK Link to retain its capital account at respondent CSAM in addition to receiving a new strip of securities, vacated.

[576]*576The arbitral award, which was confirmed without modification in 2006, states that MK Link’s 1996 Fund “limited partnership capital account position shall be effected for the full 13-year term of the . . . Fund, without calculation of any participation in the Master Fund” (emphasis added). The Special Referee’s decision, which permitted petitioner MK Link to retain its capital account (i.e., its participation in the Master Fund) at respondent CSAM in addition to receiving a new strip of securities, impermissibly modified the arbitral award (see CPLR 7511 [c]) and violated the rule against double recoveries (see e.g. Dabbah Sec. Corp. v Croesus Capital Corp., 297 AD2d 531, 534 [2002]). MK Link contends that the award of its capital account compensated it for the damages caused by CSAM’s delay in complying with the arbitral award. However, the Special Referee specifically denied MK Link’s requests for consequential damages and interest. Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Catterson, Acosta, Freedman and Román, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Harold G. Leventhal, Special Ref.), entered December 1, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from, permitted a double recovery, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and so much of the order and judgment as permits petitioner MK Link to retain its capital account at respondent CSAM in addition to receiving a new strip of securities, vacated.

[576]*576The arbitral award, which was confirmed without modification in 2006, states that MK Link’s 1996 Fund “limited partnership capital account position shall be effected for the full 13-year term of the . . . Fund, without calculation of any participation in the Master Fund” (emphasis added). The Special Referee’s decision, which permitted petitioner MK Link to retain its capital account (i.e., its participation in the Master Fund) at respondent CSAM in addition to receiving a new strip of securities, impermissibly modified the arbitral award (see CPLR 7511 [c]) and violated the rule against double recoveries (see e.g. Dabbah Sec. Corp. v Croesus Capital Corp., 297 AD2d 531, 534 [2002]). MK Link contends that the award of its capital account compensated it for the damages caused by CSAM’s delay in complying with the arbitral award. However, the Special Referee specifically denied MK Link’s requests for consequential damages and interest. Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Catterson, Acosta, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.3d 575, 946 N.Y.S.2d 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mk-link-investment-partnership-v-wsw-capital-inc-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack