Appellant's reliance on RPAPL 1301 in support of dismissal is misplaced because the two actions commenced by respondent bank in this case do not both seek to recover a mortgage debt ( see, e.g., Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v Forte, 94 AD2d 59), but rather a debt stemming from the principal debtor's breach of its line of credit agreement with plaintiff. RPAPL 1301 is inapplicable where, as here, the second action is on a debt that is separate and distinct from the mortgage debt ( GIT Indus. v Rose, 81 AD2d 656, on remand 94 AD2d 714, affd 62 NY2d 659). Clearly, consolidation was proper, as the two actions arise out of the same contract and involve interrelated questions of law or fact. Nor was it error to allow plaintiff to amend the complaint in the guarantee action, or to grant a deficiency judgment against appellant, that judgment properly arising out of the action in which he was named, served, and appeared. We have considered appellant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.