Opinion
April 15, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action after the appellants defaulted on payments due on a mortgage note. The appellants contend that a promissory note for the amount of the mortgage note, which was signed by the appellant Russell McAuliffe, Jr., and offered to the plaintiff's servicing agent prior to commencement of the action, satisfied their mortgage debt. It is well settled, however, that a subsequent note does not discharge the original indebtedness in the absence of an express agreement between the parties ( see, Home City Sav. Bank v. Sperrazza, 204 A.D.2d 836; Home City Sav. Bank v. Bilinski, 177 A.D.2d 73; Bank of N.Y. v. Cerasaro, 98 A.D.2d 902; Skaneateles Sav. Bank v Herold, 50 A.D.2d 85, affd 40 N.Y.2d 999). The appellants failed to offer any evidence that the plaintiff agreed to accept the promissory note as payment of the mortgage debt. Since the appellants presented no valid defense to the foreclosure action, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the plaintiff. O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.