Opinion
Decided May 8, 1984
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, Joseph J. Ricotta, J.
Paul J. Yesawich, III, and Don B. Iwanicki for appellant.
Henry W. Cornell, III, for respondents.
MEMORANDUM.
Order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the Appellate Division memorandum ( 97 A.D.2d 974). We add that when the letter is read together with the note to which it refers, as it must be, the natural import of the words, "This is the amount owing the Doerflinger Estate" is that the relation of debtor and creditor exists between the signer of the letter and the note on the one hand and the estate on the other ( Manchester v Braedner, 107 N.Y. 346, 348-349). Absent explanation by defendant that would offer a different meaning, the estate was entitled to summary judgment ( id.).
Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER, SIMONS and KAYE concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.