is defective. ( Jurgens v. Wichmann, 124 App. Div. 531; Capek v. Demetrowitz, 253 App. Div. 917. ) In addition, paragraph 3 is defective in that it couples a denial with a purported admission of matter not alleged in the complaint. The motion therefore is granted only to the extent that paragraphs 2 and 3 are stricken but with leave to the defendant to serve an amended answer in conformity with sections 241, 261 (subd. 2) and 276 of the Civil Practice Act within 10 days after service of an order hereon, with notice of entry.

This first defense, as presently pleaded, does not claim that said defendant was "duped" into signing the guarantee as was the case in Pimpinello v. Swift Co. ( supra). The second defense, that by reason of undue and unreasonable delay on the part of the plaintiff to enforce payment the defendant was relieved from liability, is also insufficient ( Howe Mach. Co. v. Farrington, 82 N.Y. 121, 131; Douglass v. Ferris, 138 N.Y. 192, 206; Capek v. Demetrowitz, 253 App. Div. 917). The third defense, that the value of the property exceeds the mortgage, with interest, taxes and costs, is also insufficient.