Emmet & Co. v. Catholic Health East, 114 A.D.3d 605 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). · Go Syfert
Search
Emmet & Co. v. Catholic Health East, 114 A.D.3d 605 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Waxman v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. (nysd, 2016-12-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Waxman v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 2016 · confidence medium
However, in Emmet & Co. v. Catholic Health East, 37 Misc.3d 854 , 951 N.Y.S.2d 846 (Sup. Ct. 2012), aff'd, 114 A.D.3d 605 , 980 N.Y.S.2d 762 (1st Dep’t 2014), New York courts interpreted language like Section 6.8 and held it did not excuse complying with a no-action clause, except in “suits for past due, accrued interest,” because “allowing lawsuits for unaccrued payment obligations would essentially allow all claims relating to the value of the bond, and would let the payment exception swallow the no-action clause.” Id. at 859-60.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MeehanCombs Global Credit Opportunities Funds, LP v. Caesars Entertainment Corp. (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 2015 · confidence medium
As noted in Emmet & Co., “federal courts have held that, under New York law, in the absence of express language in the provision limiting it to ‘unpaid’ interest, the exception also allows suits for interest that has not yet accrued.” Id. at 850 (emphasis in original) (citing Continental Cas.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Emmet & Co., Inc.
v.
Catholic Health East
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 27, 2014.
114 A.D.3d 605
Published

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered December 13, 2012, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered September 25, 2012, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Plaintiffs’ status as former bondholders does not render the “no action” clauses of the indentures governing the bonds inapplicable to them (Bank of N.Y. v Battery Park City Auth., 251[*606] AD2d 211 [1st Dept 1998]). Nor are they excused from compliance by the indentures “principal and interest” clauses, which only authorize actions for past due principal and interest (id.). Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Saxe and Clark, JJ.