Legal Opinion
Bank of Suffolk County v. Kite
New York Court of Appeals
Decided March 18, 1980PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
It is trué 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 NY2d 488, 491; see Long Is. Trust Co. v International Inst, for Packaging Educ., 38 NY2d 493, 496-497). 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…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hicks v. BushNew York Court of Appeals · 1962
- Long Island Trust Co. v. International Institute for Packaging Education, Ltd.New York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Meadow Brook National Bank v. BzuraAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1964
- Fleck v. Bank of Suffolk CountyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
3Cited by33 opinions
- Braten v. Bankers Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Quest Commercial, LLC v. RovnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Banque Nationale de Paris v. 1567 Broadway Ownership AssociatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Intercontinental Monetary Corp. v. Performance Guarantees, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1989
- Flacke v. Salem Hills Sewage Disposal Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.