Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that "[m]otions for reargument are addressed to the sound discretion of the court and may be granted upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or law or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision" (Swenning v. Wankel, 140 A.D.2d 428, 429; Lear v. New York Helicopter Corp., 192 A.D.2d 645, 646). In view of the court's subsequent reliance on two cases cited by the movant for reargument, we find that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the motion for reargument.
Furthermore, we find that the court correctly concluded that since the mortgage did not clearly state that the security agreement was secured by the subject property, the mortgage can be satisfied by payment of the balance due on the face amount of the mortgage, i.e., $25,000 (see, Telmark, Inc. v. National Commercial Bank Trust Co., 73 A.D.2d 777; Brandenberg v Tirino, 37 A.D.2d 713; cf., State Bank v. Fioravanti, 51 N.Y.2d 638; Matter of Jeffrey Towers v. Straus, 31 A.D.2d 319). O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.