Opinion
September 1, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.).
We disagree with the IAS Court that proof of the alleged oral agreement giving plaintiffs the right to stay at defendants' residence indefinitely is necessarily barred by the parol evidence rule, there being an issue of fact whether the print in the parties' written agreement limiting residency to four years was less than eight points in depth, and thus a question whether the parties have an enforceable written contract (CPLR 4544). In addition, as to those plaintiffs who lived in defendants' residence for two years before signing written agreements limiting their residency to four years, parol evidence is admissible to show that the written agreements were not supported by consideration (see, Ehrlich v. American Moninger Greenhouse Mfg. Corp., 26 N.Y.2d 255, 258; Richardson, Evidence § 608 [Prince 10th ed]). Accordingly, we modify to reinstate the fifth cause of action and otherwise affirm for the reasons stated by the IAS Court ( 157 Misc.2d 494).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.