Mount Carmel Energy Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank
| Decision Date | 04 June 1981 |
| Citation | 82 A.D.2d 729,439 N.Y.S.2d 387 |
| Parties | , 31 UCC Rep.Serv. 652 MOUNT CARMEL ENERGY CORPORATION et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. MARINE MIDLAND BANK et al., Defendants, and Dai Han Coal Corporation of the Republic of Korea, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
J. P. Dollard, Garden City, for plaintiffs-respondents.
G. A. Novack, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before KUPFERMAN, J. P., and SULLIVAN, CARRO, MARKEWICH and SILVERMAN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, 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. UCC § 5-114; United Bank Ltd. v. Cambridge Sporting Goods Corp., 41 N.Y.2d 254, 259, 392 N.Y.S.2d 265, 360 N.E.2d 943; Sztejn v. Schroder Banking Corp., 177 Misc. 719, 31 N.Y.S.2d 631; Foreign Venture Limited Partnership v. Chemical Bank, 59 A.D.2d 352, 355-356, 399 N.Y.S.2d 114. 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Key Intern. Mfg. Inc. v. Stillman
...(2 Cir.1979); Fertico Belgium, S.A. v. Phosphate Chems. Export Assn., 100 A.D.2d 165, 473 N.Y.S.2d 403; Mount Carmel Energy Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, 82 A.D.2d 729, 439 N.Y.S.2d 387; Foreign Venture Ltd. Partnership v. Chemical Bank, 59 A.D.2d 352, 399 N.Y.S.2d 114; cf. United Bank v. C......
-
Chiat/Day Inc. v. Kalimian
...and the active intentional fraud which rises to the level of fraud in the transaction (see Mount Carmel Energy Corporation, et al. v. Marine Midland Bank, 82 A.D.2d 729, 439 N.Y.S.2d 387; Spiegel Novelty Co., Inc. v. Bankers Trust, NYLJ, Oct. 24, 1984, p. 11 col. 1, Sup.Ct., N.Y.Co., supra;......