The documentary evidence establishes that the second, so-called Disputed Note was the obligation of Manhattan, not Kornew, which defendant could properly enforce by foreclosing on the Manhattan mortgage containing a "dragnet clause" making it applicable to future advances (State Bank v. Fioravanti, 51 N.Y.2d 638, 645). Under these circumstances, even assuming that defendant altered the second mortgage to include a clause subordinating it to the first mortgage, such alteration did not increase plaintiffs' liability and was therefore immaterial (see, Phalanx Corp. v. Philite Radiant, 19 A.D.2d 515; Megaris Furs v Gimbel Bros., 172 A.D.2d 209, 212-213). Nor do plaintiffs' allegations show that defendant's alleged deceptive acts and practices were of a recurring nature and harmful to the public at large, necessary to their claim under General Business Law § 349 (see, United Knitwear Co. v. North Sea Ins. Co., 203 A.D.2d 358). We have considered plaintiffs' other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Rubin and Tom, JJ.