Majority
p. 928Ellen M. O'Neill et al., Respondents, v Roland Poitras et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.
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.
p. 929
Corp. 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.
Cases cited
- Chicago Research & Trading v. New York Futures Exchange, Inc. 84 AD2d 413 at 416 p. 928
- Haulage Enterprises Corp. v. Hempstead Resources Recovery Corp. 74 AD2d 863 at 864 p. 929
- Newco Waste Systems, Inc. v. Swartzenberg 125 AD2d 1004 at 1005 p. 929
- Family Affair Haircutters, Inc. v. Detling 110 AD2d 745 at 747 p. 929
- Maurice O'Meara Co. v. National Park Bank 239 NY 386 p. 929
- Chiat/Day Inc., Advertising v. Kalimian 105 AD2d 94 at 96 p. 929