Opinion ID: 738504
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Validity of the Assignment

Text: 23 The claim that the assignment from Mellon to Pravin is invalid can be disposed of quickly. Under New York law, only express limitations on assignability are enforceable. 24 [T]o reveal the intent necessary to preclude the power to assign, or cause an assignment violative of contractual provisions to be wholly void, [a contractual] clause must contain express provisions that any assignment shall be void or invalid if not made in a certain specified way. 25 University Mews Assocs. v. Jeanmarie, 122 Misc.2d 434, 471 N.Y.S.2d 457, 461 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1983); see also Allhusen v. Caristo Constr. Corp., 303 N.Y. 446, 103 N.E.2d 891, 892 (1952) (noting that non-assignability language must be clear and definite). The Letter Agreement at issue provides: This letter agreement shall be binding upon you [Banco Popular], your successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of us [Mellon], our successors, transferees and assigns. We [Mellon] may assign all or any part of our interest in this letter agreement to any financial institution. [A 97] This language fails to restrict the assignment expressly in any way. While it explicitly permits assignments to financial institutions, it does not limit assignments only to these entities. The assignment was therefore valid at the time it was made. 2 26 Since we hold that as a matter of New York law, the debt was assignable to Pravin, whether or not it is a financial institution, there is no need to consider appellants' claim that factual issues exist as to whether Pravin is a financial institution.