Opinion
October 22, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Francis N. Pecora, J.).
Plaintiff, despite a complete written agreement under which a 30-day payment term was imposed, seeks to introduce parol evidence that the parties intended a 60-to-90-day payment term. The IAS Court correctly found such parol evidence to be inadmissible. No additional term may be evidenced by parol evidence that is inconsistent with the written terms of the agreement (compare, Whirlpool Corp. v Regis Leasing Corp., 29 A.D.2d 395, 398, with Hunt Foods Indus. v Doliner, 26 A.D.2d 41, 42).
Plaintiff's argument that the agreement was ambiguous, made for the first time on appeal, may not now be considered. (See, City of New York v Stack, 178 A.D.2d 355, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 753.)
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.