In the circumstances, there is no justification for defendants' effort to transform the defense of release into a separate claim for injunctive relief. Radio Corp. of America v. Raytheon Mfg. Co., 296 U.S. 459, 56 S.Ct. 297, 80 L.Ed. 327 (1935); Burke v. Burke, 212 N.Y. 303, 106 N.E. 62 (1914). Similar reasoning leads to rejection of the motion for a separate, advance trial of the defense and counterclaim.
The defendant threatens and intends to prosecute the original action and to withhold wholly performance on her part. The allegations of the complaint permit the plaintiff to invoke equitable jurisdiction. ( Very v. Levy, 13 How. [U.S.] 345; Burke v. Burke, 212 N.Y. 303, 307.) In the case last cited Judge, now Chief Judge, HISCOCK stated the rule: "The general rule of course is that equity will not entertain such an action as this to restrain an action at law unless special reasons demonstrate that full justice cannot be done in the latter action, and that an action in equity is necessary to secure to a party a more complete enjoyment of the rights to which he is entitled than could be obtained in the action at law.
"Equity will not * * * restrain an action at law unless special reasons demonstrate that full justice cannot be done in the latter action * * *. If the equitable action holds out no promise of relief which may not be secured in the other and more restricted proceeding, there is no occasion for interference and it will be withheld." ( Burke v. Burke, 212 N.Y. 303, 307.) It may be as the plaintiff asserts that the facts are complicated, and proof thereof in some of the actions will be difficult. But "mere complication of facts alone and difficulty of proof are not a basis of equity jurisdiction."