Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

MacKay Shields LLC v. Sea Containers, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 19, 2002

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

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Allan Applestein Ttee Fbo D.C.A. Grantor Trust v. The Province of Buenos Aires, Docket No. 04-3288-Cv (2d Cir. 2005)
In re Board of Directors of Multicanal S.A. (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 2004)
Wilmington Trust, N.A. v. Board of Mgrs. 229 W. 43rd St. Condominium (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
Springwell Navigation Corp. v. Sanluis Corporación (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—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*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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.