O'Neill v. Poitras

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Neill v. Poitras

158 A.D.2d 928, 551 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1434

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 2, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 928 (O'Neill v. Poitras) 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

O'Neill v. Poitras, 158 A.D.2d 928, 551 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiffs’ action is essentially one for breach of contract for the sale of a business. Injunctive relief is not appropriate in actions involving breach of contract where a plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law (see, Chicago Research & Trading v New York Futures Exch., 84 AD2d 413, 416; Haulage Enters. [929]*929Corp. v Hempstead Resources Recovery Corp., 74 AD2d 863, 864). The facts with respect to whether the Poitrases made any misrepresentations as to the validity of a so-called extension agreement executed by Buffalo Raceway are sharply in dispute and, under such circumstances, a preliminary injunction should not be granted (see, Newco Waste Sys. v Swartzenberg, 125 AD2d 1004, 1005; Family Affair Haircutters v Detling, 110 AD2d 745, 747). Moreover, a letter of credit is completely independent of the contract between the customer and the beneficiary (see, UCC 5-114; O’Meara Co. v National Park Bank, 239 NY 386, rearg denied 240 NY 607; Chiat/Day Inc., Adv. v Kalimian, 105 AD2d 94, 96). Payment of a letter of credit may be enjoined only where "active intentional fraud” is shown (Chiat/Day Inc., Adv. v Kalimian, supra, at 97); there has been no such allegation here. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Henry, Jr., J.— vacate preliminary injunction.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Plaintiffs’ action is essentially one for breach of contract for the sale of a business. Injunctive relief is not appropriate in actions involving breach of contract where a plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law (see, Chicago Research & Trading v New York Futures Exch., 84 AD2d 413, 416; Haulage Enters. [929]*929Corp. v Hempstead Resources Recovery Corp., 74 AD2d 863, 864). The facts with respect to whether the Poitrases made any misrepresentations as to the validity of a so-called extension agreement executed by Buffalo Raceway are sharply in dispute and, under such circumstances, a preliminary injunction should not be granted (see, Newco Waste Sys. v Swartzenberg, 125 AD2d 1004, 1005; Family Affair Haircutters v Detling, 110 AD2d 745, 747). Moreover, a letter of credit is completely independent of the contract between the customer and the beneficiary (see, UCC 5-114; O’Meara Co. v National Park Bank, 239 NY 386, rearg denied 240 NY 607; Chiat/Day Inc., Adv. v Kalimian, 105 AD2d 94, 96). Payment of a letter of credit may be enjoined only where "active intentional fraud” is shown (Chiat/Day Inc., Adv. v Kalimian, supra, at 97); there has been no such allegation here. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Henry, Jr., J.— vacate preliminary injunction.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 928, 551 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneill-v-poitras-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack