There is no merit to defendant's contention that the note is not an instrument for the payment of money only within the meaning of CPLR 3213, containing, as it does, an unconditional promise to pay on a certain day the current balance in defendant's line of credit, an amount readily ascertainable from plaintiff's bank records (Schwartz v. Turner Holdings, 139 A.D.2d 458, appeal dismissed 72 N.Y.2d 949). Nor is there merit to defendant's defenses to the note of waiver, estoppel and an alleged forbearance by oral agreement, all of which are barred by the parol evidence rule or the Statute of Frauds set forth in General Obligations Law § 15-301 (Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Margolis, 115 A.D.2d 406, 407; Kornfeld v. NRX Technologies, 93 A.D.2d 772, 773, affd 62 N.Y.2d 686; National Westminster Bank v. Vannier Group, 160 A.D.2d 348, 349).
We have considered the defendant's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Milonas, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.