Opinion
January 28, 1971
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on September 29, 1970, in this action on a promissory note and guarantee, denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed on the law and motion granted. Appellant shall recover of respondents $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal. No issue is raised with regard to the making of the note or the written guarantee. Also, it is conceded that $16,000 remains unpaid on the note. Defendants' claim that plaintiff bank orally agreed to a 90-day extension of the note beyond its due date contradicts the express terms of the instrument itself and is therefore unavailable because it would violate the parol evidence rule. ( Leumi Fin. Corp. v. Richter, 17 N.Y.2d 166, 173; Solomon v. Van De Maele, 21 A.D.2d 396, 399; Central Hanover Bank Trust Co. v. Duffy, 258 N.Y. 600; Jamestown Business Coll. Assn. v. Allen, 172 N.Y. 291; Ford v. Hahn, 269 App. Div. 436; Franklin Nat. Bank v. Wall St. Commercial Corp., 40 Misc.2d 1003.) Nor is defendants' claim of an executory accord sufficient to bar the relief sought by plaintiff, since no sufficient writing signed by plaintiff, or consideration, has been shown by defendants. ( Chemical Bank N.Y. Trust Co. v. Staten Is. Bd. of Jewish Educ., 23 A.D.2d 833, affd. 16 N.Y.2d 909.)
Concur — Stevens, P.J., Capozzoli, McGivern, Kupferman and Tilzer, JJ.