In Di Matteo v. North Tanawanda Auto Wash (101 AD2d 692, 476 NYS2d 40 [1984]) the Appellate Division found that an inadvertent default by the mortgagor raised factual questions that might prevent foreclosure. The monthly mortgage installments in Di Matteo were due on the first day of the month, with a seven-day grace period. A monthly mortgage payment was timely written, but later found to have been made on insufficient funds. The mortgagor claimed that had the check been deposited when issued, it would have cleared. The mortgagor also claimed, in that case, that the mortgagee gave no opportunity to cure the default. The Supreme Court in Di Matteo granted the mortgagee's motion for summary judgment. In a substantial modification, basically amounting to a reversal, the Fourth Department ruled that summary judgment should not have been granted to either party, invoking the defense of unconscionability. The appellate court stated: "Defendant here has attempted to show that its default was the result of innocent and inadvertent mistake and, by implication at least, that it attempted to cure the default upon learning of it. Defendant claims that its default resulted from error in the balancing of its checking account, and that plaintiffs were but slightly inconvenienced with respect to only one installment payment. There has been no showing that the default prejudiced plaintiffs in any way. Defendant, therefore, has raised factual questions which, if resolved in its favor, could prevent foreclosure." (Di Matteo v. North Tanawanda Auto Wash, 101 AD2d at 693.)