Opinion
March 26, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Francis N. Pecora, J.).
The pertinent portions of the parties' security agreement on which the first cause of action is based are susceptible to differing interpretations supportive of either of the positions urged by the parties, and thus parol evidence may be considered to determine the parties' intent (67 Wall St. Co. v Franklin Natl. Bank, 37 N.Y.2d 245, 248). Summary judgment is inappropriate where, as here, the intent of the parties cannot be determined from the face of the agreement (see, e.g., IBM Credit Fin. Corp. v Mazda Motor Mfg. [USA] Corp., 152 A.D.2d 451).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Kassal, JJ.