Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court

of the City of New York, New York County (Jose A. Padilla, Jr., J.), dated May 25, 2007, which denied his motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the action
Per Curiam.
Order (Jose A. Padilla, Jr., J.), dated May 25,
2007, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Civil Court properly awarded defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint inasmuch as the promissory note sued upon was unenforceable as violative of the usury laws (see Borowski v Falleder, 296 AD2d 301 [2002]). Plaintiff's documentary proof did not support his contention that the underlying transaction was, in reality, a sale on credit of a piano, which would not fall within the definition of usury (see Citipostal, Inc. v Unistar Leasing, 283 AD2d 916, 919 [2001]. The promissory note, on its face, and plaintiff's own supporting affidavit identified this transaction as a "loan," making no mention of any other document or transaction. The alleged oral financing agreement between plaintiff, decedent and a nonparty (Pinto) is "the sort of complex arrangement which is customarily reduced to writing" (Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v Margolis, 115 AD2d 406, 407-408 [1985]). Acceptance of plaintiff's recast version of the transaction would require the improper consideration of parol evidence contradicting the clear terms of the promissory note (see Leumi Fin. Corp. v Richter, 17 NY2d 166, 173 [1966]; Ruder v Lewandowski, 174 AD2d 406, 406-407 [1991]).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments
and find them to be without merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. [*2]
I concur
Decision Date: July 21, 2008