Legal Opinion
O'Neill v. Poitras
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 2, 1990PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
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. *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…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Maurice O'Meara Co. v. National Park BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
- Family Affair Haircutters, Inc. v. DetlingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Haulage Enterprises Corp. v. Hempstead Resources Recovery Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
- Newco Waste Systems, Inc. v. SwartzenbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Chiat/Day Inc., Advertising v. KalimianAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Reuben H. Donnelley Corp. v. Mark I Marketing Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1995
- Amity Loans, Inc. v. Sterling National Bank & Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991