Summary
In European Am. Bank v Cohen (183 AD2d 453 [1st Dept 1992]), the Appellate Division, First Department rejected defendants' contention that a note which contained an unconditional promise to pay on a certain day the current balance in defendant's line of credit was not an instrument for the payment of money only because there was the need to resort to outside records (i.e., plaintiff's bank account) in order to determine the amount that had been taken out on the line of credit.
Summary of this case from Hudson Val. Bank, N.A. v. BanxcorpOpinion
May 12, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol H. Arber, J.).
There is no merit to defendant's contention that the note is not an instrument for the payment of money only within the meaning of CPLR 3213, containing, as it does, an unconditional promise to pay on a certain day the current balance in defendant's line of credit, an amount readily ascertainable from plaintiff's bank records (Schwartz v. Turner Holdings, 139 A.D.2d 458, appeal dismissed 72 N.Y.2d 949). Nor is there merit to defendant's defenses to the note of waiver, estoppel and an alleged forbearance by oral agreement, all of which are barred by the parol evidence rule or the Statute of Frauds set forth in General Obligations Law § 15-301 (Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Margolis, 115 A.D.2d 406, 407; Kornfeld v. NRX Technologies, 93 A.D.2d 772, 773, affd 62 N.Y.2d 686; National Westminster Bank v. Vannier Group, 160 A.D.2d 348, 349).
We have considered the defendant's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Milonas, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.