Summary
affirming rejection of defense based on alleged oral promises where mortgage documents "specifically precluded any oral modification"
Summary of this case from 1st Bridge v. William Lee Freeman Garden ApartmentsOpinion
March 12, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.).
Upon examination of the record, we find that the IAS court properly granted plaintiff CrossLand's motion for summary judgment to the extent of granting foreclosure on the subject property and properly excluded parole and hearsay evidence submitted by the Loguidice defendants in opposition thereto. Here, the defendants' parole evidence, in the form of uncorroborated affidavits purporting to establish oral promises by plaintiff CrossLand of permanent financing and to forbear in foreclosing on the defaulted mortgages, was directly contradicted by the unambiguous terms of the parties' mortgage documents which specifically precluded any oral modification, waiver or termination of any rights or remedies provided therein. (New York State Mtge. Loan Enforcement Admin. Corp. v Coney Is. Site Five Houses, 109 A.D.2d 311, 318; New York State Urban Dev. Corp. v Garvey Brownstone Houses, 98 A.D.2d 767, 771.)
Similarly, we find that the IAS court properly rejected defendants' conclusory and unsupported claims of bad faith, fraud, mutual mistake and estoppel as negated by the express terms of the parties' unambiguous written agreements. (Long Is. R.R. Co. v Northville Indus. Corp., 41 N.Y.2d 455, 461; West, Weir Bartel v Carter Paint Co., 25 N.Y.2d 535, 540.)
We have considered the defendants' remaining contentions, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Asch and Smith, JJ.