Mount Carmel Energy Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank

82 A.D.2d 729, 439 N.Y.S.2d 387, 31 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 652, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14351
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 4, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 82 A.D.2d 729 (Mount Carmel Energy Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mount Carmel Energy Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, 82 A.D.2d 729, 439 N.Y.S.2d 387, 31 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 652, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander, J.), entered March 18,1981, granting plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, is unanimously reversed, on the law, so far as appealed from, and plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is denied, with costs. An irrevocable letter of credit must be honored, and its payment is not to be enjoined at the suit of the customer who procured the letter of credit to be issued, if the documents presented appear on their face to comply with the terms of the irrevocable letter of credit, unless it appears that the documents are forged or fraudulent or there is fraud in the transaction. (Uniform Commercial Code, § 5-114; United Bank v Cambridge Sporting Goods Corp., 41 NY2d 254, 259; Sztejn v Schroder Banking Corp., 177 Misc 719; Foreign Venture Ltd. Partnership v Chemical Bank, 59 AD2d 352, 355-356.) There is no suggestion here that the documents are forged or fraudulent. The dispute as to whether plaintiffs’ agent had actual or apparent authority to enter into the contract with the beneficiary of the letter of credit does not make the documents fraudulent nor does it constitute fraud in the transaction within the meaning of these rules. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Carro, Markewich and Silverman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Chiat/Day Inc., Advertising v. Kalimian
105 A.D.2d 94 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Key International Manufacturing, Inc. v. Stillman
103 A.D.2d 475 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 A.D.2d 729, 439 N.Y.S.2d 387, 31 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 652, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mount-carmel-energy-corp-v-marine-midland-bank-nyappdiv-1981.