Order entered June 5, 1967, denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to the plaintiff-appellant, and the motion granted, without prejudice to the defendant, if so advised, to bring an action based upon the counterclaims alleged in his affidavit. Defendant's defense of a parol agreement that the $100,000 promissory note payable to the order of the plaintiff, bearing interest at 6% and due on demand, did not represent an obligation, but, rather, was intended as a payment on account of an indebtedness from plaintiff to defendant cannot be availed of to vary the definite terms of the instrument. Moreover, the assertions in defendant's affidavit fail to demonstrate the defense to be genuine, bona fide and substantial. ( Leumi Fin. Corp. v. Richter, 24 A.D.2d 855, affd. 17 N.Y.2d 166; Pease Elliman v. 926 Park Ave. Corp., 23 A.D.2d 361.)
Concur — Steuer, J.P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, McNally and Witmer, JJ.