NY Court of Appeals rules for GGYC, CNEV not ChoR

Whatever you want to talk about, do it right here!

Locked
mp
Matelot
Posts: 86
Joined: 10 Feb 2006, 16:35
Location: Argentina

NY Court of Appeals rules for GGYC, CNEV not ChoR

Post by mp »

Just came out of NY:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since CNEV has failed to show that at the time it submitted its Notice of Challenge it was a "[c]lub fulfilling all the conditions required by" the Deed of Gift, it does not qualify as the Challenger of Record for the 33rd America's Cup competition and Supreme Court was correct in declaring GGYC to be the valid Challenger of Record.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the orders of Supreme Court reinstated.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Order reversed, with costs, and orders of Supreme Court, New York County, reinstated. Opinion by Judge Ciparick. Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur. Chief Judge Lippman took no part.
Decided April 2, 2009

.>>>>>>>>>>>>

More details, the key point being the "having" issue on the regatta:


In looking at the plain language of the Deed of Gift itself, as we must, we first note that the annual regatta requirement is only one of a list of eligibility requirements set forth in the Deed of Gift. The settlor clearly placed the requirements of "organized" and "incorporated, patented, or
licensed" in the past and intended that a challenger would continue to meet these eligibility requirements in the present and future. For example, the term "incorporated" refers both to a past event of incorporation and to a continuing status. We believe that the settlor intended the same to be true for the "annual" regatta requirement. By using the word "annual," the settlor suggested an event that has already occurred at least once and will occur regularly in the future. Taken as a whole, we conclude that the settlor intended to link the annual regatta
requirement to the other eligibility requirements in that the challenging yacht club has in the past and will continue in the future "having" an annual regatta on the sea. Any other interpretation would render the annual regatta requirement a nullity.

Here is the link to the full document
http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decision ... 5opn09.pdf
User avatar
CANKnot
Moderator
Posts: 1320
Joined: 09 Nov 2005, 22:21

Post by CANKnot »

Nice find. I wonder what this will mean for the 33rd AC considering SNG and CNEV have already released a protocol and announced the first two regattas?
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
mp
Matelot
Posts: 86
Joined: 10 Feb 2006, 16:35
Location: Argentina

Post by mp »

It means the current AC33 arrangements are off, at least in their current format.

So it is either a 90meter Mega Catamaran showdown, you can see the BOR90 in their website, or a new negociated protocol between GGYC and SNG.

Who knows, hopefully it will get back on the water sooner rather than later. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

Cheers
Locked