Moore Bros. Oil Co. v. Dean
Opinion of the Court
— In a foreclosure action, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Slifkin, J.), entered January 30, 1984, which, after a nonjury trial, granted a judgment of foreclosure and sale.
Judgment affirmed.
Motion by respondent to strike appellants’ reply brief denied.
Respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
While defendant Dean’s personal guarantee, dated July 16, 1981, was clearly limited in its duration to those debts incurred by defendant DAP Oil Corp. for a one-year period, the trial court properly found that the mortgage and mortgage note which the parties substituted for this guarantee bore no such limitation. The express language of the agreement, dated June 30,1982, to substitute security states in no uncertain terms that the note and mortgage are to secure all past, present and future debts. Furthermore, the note and mortgage contain no term limiting their duration. Since these documents are clear and unambiguous on their face, extrinsic evidence of a prior or contemporaneous oral agreement to limit their duration is barred by the parol evidence rule (see, Belden-Stark Brick Corp. v Bronson & Popoli, 48 AD2d 845, appeal dismissed 38 NY2d 753; Nanuet Natl. Bank v Rom, 96 AD2d 898). We further find that the agreement to substitute security and the ensuing note and mortgage were properly accepted by plaintiff, and that this acceptance was timely communicated to defendants. Moreover, defendants’ contention that the security agreement was unsupported by valid
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.