Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department reversed the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint and granted the motion. The court held that a subordination clause in a convertible promissory note did not prevent the plaintiff from commencing a proceeding and obtaining a judgment against the defendant upon default; the clause instead governed payment priority relative to other creditors.
Holdings
- The subordination clause did not restrict plaintiff's right to commence a proceeding against defendant upon default under the note in order to reduce plaintiff's claim to a judgment.
- Language purporting to forbid or limit payments on subordinated debt while senior debt remained unpaid structured creditor priority and did not affect plaintiff's right to a judgment against defendant as debtor.
Questions Presented
- Whether a subordination clause in a convertible promissory note restricted plaintiff's right to commence a proceeding and obtain a judgment against the debtor upon default.
- Whether language limiting payments on subordinated debt while senior debt remained unpaid affected plaintiff's right to obtain a judgment against defendant.
Disposition
reversed
Cases Cited (3)
- Standard Brands v Straile, 23 AD2d 363, 366 [1st Dept 1965](followed)
- Kornfeld v NRX Tech., 93 AD2d 772, 772-773 [1st Dept 1983], affd 62 NY2d 686 [1984](followed)
- J-Bar Reinforcement, Inc. v Crest Hill Capital LLC, 169 AD3d 499, 499-500 [1st Dept 2019](contrasted)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…