Opinion
May 11, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is a fundamental principle of contract interpretation that when a handwritten or typewritten provision conflicts with the language of a preprinted form document, the former will control, "as it is presumed to express the latest intention of the parties" ( Kratzenstein v. Western Assur. Co., 116 N.Y. 54, 57; see, Poel v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co., 216 N.Y. 310, 322; Ruiz v. Chwatt Assocs., 247 A.D.2d 308; Honigsbaum's, Inc. v. Stuyvesant Plaza, 178 A.D.2d 702; Matter of Cale Dev. Co. v. Conciliation Appeals Bd., 94 A.D.2d 229, 233-234, affd 61 N.Y.2d 976). In this case, the plaintiff Home Federal Savings Bank (hereinafter the bank) was not required to give the borrowers 30 days notice of default before accelerating the debt as provided under the preprinted provisions of the note and mortgage. The bank properly complied with paragraph 32 of the typewritten mortgage rider which gave it the right to demand immediate payment in full if the borrowers failed to make monthly payment of principal and interest as provided in the note for 30 days after it is due.
O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.