Case Name: Marshall Investments Corporation et al., Appellants, v. Harrah's Operating Company, Inc., as Successor to Caesar's Entertainment Inc., Formerly Known as Park Place Entertainment Corporation et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2011-03-15
Citations: 82 A.D.3d 515
Docket Number: 
Parties: Marshall Investments Corporation et al., Appellants, v Harrah’s Operating Company, Inc., as Successor to Caesar’s Entertainment Inc., Formerly Known as Park Place Entertainment Corporation et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 515–515

Head Matter:
Marshall Investments Corporation et al., Appellants, v Harrah’s Operating Company, Inc., as Successor to Caesar’s Entertainment Inc., Formerly Known as Park Place Entertainment Corporation et al., Respondents.
[918 NYS2d 451]

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.