Bank of Suffolk County v. Kite
| Decision Date | 18 March 1980 |
| Citation | 404 N.E.2d 1323,49 N.Y.2d 827,427 N.Y.S.2d 782 |
| Parties | , 404 N.E.2d 1323, 28 UCC Rep.Serv. 710 BANK OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, Respondent, v. Kenneth KITE, Defendant, and Francis J. Ryan, Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.) |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
It is true that parol evidence may be admissible to prove a condition precedent to the legal effectiveness of a written agreement if the condition is not contradictory or at variance with its express terms (Hicks v. Bush, 10 N.Y.2d 488, 491, 225 N.Y.S.2d 34, 180 N.E.2d 425; see Long Is. Trust Co. v. International Inst. for Packaging Educ., 38 N.Y.2d 493, 496-497, 381 N.Y.S.2d 445, 344 N.E.2d 377). But that rule is inapplicable on the facts here. The allegedly unexpressed condition to the promissory note that defendants, despite their having signed as makers of the note, were not to be held personally liable was clearly inconsistent with not only the unqualified form of this negotiable instrument, but with its explicit waiver of "the right to interpose any defense, set-off or counterclaim whatsoever" as well (see Fleck v. Bank of Suffolk County, 67 A.D.2d 676, 677, 412 N.Y.S.2d 177; Meadow Brook Nat. Bank v. Bzura, 20 A.D.2d 287, 290, 246 N.Y.S.2d 787). Defendants' averments that there existed an oral understanding that they would not be liable on the note did not therefore stand in the way of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Order affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan Stanley High Yield v. Seven Circle Gaming
...defendant "irrevocably and unconditionally" undertook to guarantee plaintiffs liabilities); Bank of Suffolk County v. Kite, 49 N.Y.2d 827, 828, 427 N.Y.S.2d 782, 783, 404 N.E.2d 1323 (1980)(alleged oral condition precedent inconsistent with clause in contract waiving "the right to interpose......
-
CROSSLAND BY FDIC v. A. Suna & Co., Inc., 92 CV 3919.
...the parol evidence rule consistently to bar defenses based upon alleged oral side agreements. E.g., Bank of Suffolk County. v. Kite, 49 N.Y.2d 827, 404 N.E.2d 1323, 427 N.Y.S.2d 782 (1980); American Bank & Trust Co. v. Intermodulex NDH Corp., 74 A.D.2d 218, 427 N.Y.S.2d 30 (1st The Amended ......
-
Torres v. D'Alesso
...makes no mention of the first and third conditions. Nor did the court mention either condition in Bank of Suffolk County v. Kite, 49 N.Y.2d 827, 427 N.Y.S.2d 782, 404 N.E.2d 1323 [1980]; rather, it simply stated that "parol evidence may be admissible to prove a condition precedent to the le......
-
Schron v. Grunstein
...that parties to an agreement may waive their defenses and will enforce validly executed waiver clauses (see Bank of Suffolk Cnty. v. Kite, 49 N.Y.2d 827, 828 [1980] [defendants' claims were “clearly inconsistent” with the agreement's “explicit waiver of the right to interpose any defense, s......