The guarantee sued on here specifically provides that it is an unconditional guarantee and that the plaintiff Bank is not required to foreclose on the mortgage given as security for the underlying note prior to suing on the guarantee. Accordingly, defendants may not avail themselves of a defense of fraud in the inducement wherein they attempt to show by parol evidence that this unconditional guarantee of payment was really a guarantee of collection (see, Citibank v Plapinger, 66 N.Y.2d 90; compare, GTE Automatic Elec. v Martin's Inc., 127 A.D.2d 545 [notes sued on contained no specific language related to the defense asserted by parol evidence]).
Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.