Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The evidence adduced by the plaintiff in support of its cross motion for summary judgment established that each of the defendants was in default, either as a debtor or as a guarantor, with respect to several promissory notes. The defendants' principal argument is that the representatives of the plaintiff had orally promised to extend the due date specified in the various notes. It is, however, well established that proof of such an oral promise may not serve as the basis for contradicting the express terms of the instruments themselves. "Defendants' claim that plaintiff bank orally agreed to a[n] * * * extension of the note[s] beyond [their] due date contradicts the express terms of the instrument[s] * * * and is therefore unavailable because it would violate the parol evidence rule" (American Bank Trust Co. v. Computer Prods., 36 A.D.2d 525; see also, Leumi Fin. Corp. v. Richter, 17 N.Y.2d 166, 173; Central Hanover Bank Trust Co. v. Duffy, 258 N.Y. 600; Jamestown Business Coll. Assn. v. Allen, 172 N.Y. 291; Thomas v. Scutt, 127 N.Y. 133; Marine Midland Bank v. Kenney Plumbing, 125 A.D.2d 969; Metropolitan Bank v. Brennan, 48 A.D.2d 254; Loeffler Co. v. Port, 40 A.D.2d 900; Franklin Natl. Bank v. Wall St. Commercial Corp., 21 A.D.2d 878, affg 40 Misc.2d 1003; Camardella v. Eastern Parkway Roller Skating Rink, 271 App. Div. 985; 81 N.Y. Jur 2d, Negotiable Instruments and Other Commercial Paper, § 758). The Supreme Court was therefore correct in granting summary judgment to the plaintiff on this issue.
We have examined the defendants' remaining contentions, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.