In interpreting the parties' intent as expressed by the language of the contract (see, Brayton v. Pappas, 52 A.D.2d 187, 188), the court properly found that the prepayment provision of the mortgage, which provided that any prepayments "will be applied in inverse order", required that the prepayments must be credited to the payments due at the end of the mortgage term. That is not inconsistent with the provision that prepayments were to be applied to reduction of principal. The fact that this negotiated clause, inartfully drafted as it was, may have favored the lender, in a transaction wherein both parties were represented by counsel, does not render the provision ambiguous or the mortgage loan usurious. The court also properly denied the application to discharge and cancel the mortgage on the grounds of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and law of the case (see, Ryan v. New York Tel. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494).
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ. [As amended by order entered Feb. 8, 1994.]