Central Federal Savings v. Berk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Central Federal Savings v. Berk

215 A.D.2d 520, 626 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5136

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 15, 1995·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover on a promissory note that was commenced pursuant to CPLR 3213 by a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wager, J.), entered September 27, 1994, as is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $915,830.02.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The parol evidence rule bars the defendant from introducing evidence of an alleged oral modification to the promissory note (see, General Obligations Law § 15-301 [1]). The defendant has failed to establish the applicability of any exception to the rule (see, Rose v Spa Realty Assocs., 42 NY2d 338, 340-341; Pau v Bellavia, 145 AD2d 609; Mel-Stu Constr. Corp. v Melwood Constr. Corp., 131 AD2d 823). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover on a promissory note that was commenced pursuant to CPLR 3213 by a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wager, J.), entered September 27, 1994, as is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $915,830.02.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The parol evidence rule bars the defendant from introducing evidence of an alleged oral modification to the promissory note (see, General Obligations Law § 15-301 [1]). The defendant has failed to establish the applicability of any exception to the rule (see, Rose v Spa Realty Assocs., 42 NY2d 338, 340-341; Pau v Bellavia, 145 AD2d 609; Mel-Stu Constr. Corp. v Melwood Constr. Corp., 131 AD2d 823). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Central Federal Savings v. Berk, 215 A.D.2d 520, 626 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5136 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

215 A.D.2d 520 (Central Federal Savings v. Berk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related