In Graf v. Hope Bldg. Corp., 254 NY 1 [1930] which was an action to foreclose a mortgage in which the defendant obligor/mortgagor appealed to the equity powers of the court to defeat the plaintiffs' claim for foreclosure and sale, Judge O'Brien rejected such appeal and found as follows: The Second Department in Fisher reversed the order of the trial court which reduced the mortgagors' monthly payments due, among other things, to the trial court's apparent sympathy for the distressed financial circumstances of the borrowers who were suffering from one or more medical conditions. "Plaintiffs may be ungenerous, but generosity is a voluntary attribute and cannot be enforced even by a chancellor. Forbearance is a quality which under the circumstances of this case is likewise free from coercion. Here there is no penalty, no forfeiture (Ferris v. Ferris, 28 Barb. 29, 16 How. Pr. 102; Noyes v. Anderson, 124 N. Y. 175, 180, 26 N. E. 316, 317, 21 Am. St. Rep. 657), nothing except a covenant fair on its face to which both parties willingly consented. It is neither oppressive nor unconscionable. (Valentine v. Van Wagner, 37 Barb. 60, 23 How. Pr. 400.) In the absence of some act by the mortgagee which a court of equity would be justified in considering unconscionable, he is entitled to the benefit of the covenant. The contract is definite and no reason appears for its reformation by the courts. (Abrams v. Thompson, 251 N. Y. 79, 86, 167 N. E. 178.) We are not at liberty to revise while professing to construe. (Sun P. & P. Assn. v. Remington P. & P. Co., 235 N. Y. 338, 346, 139 N. E. 470.) Defendant's mishap, caused by a succession of its errors and negligent omissions, is not of the nature requiring relief from its default. Rejection of plaintiffs' legal right could rest only on compassion for defendant's negligence. Such a tender emotion must be exerted, if at all, by the parties rather than by the court. Our guide must be the precedents prevailing since courts of equity were established in this State. Stability of contract obligations must not be undermined by judicial sympathy. To allow this judgment to stand would constitute an interference by this court between parties whose contract is clear" (254 NY at 4-5).