| Martin v Citibank, N.A. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 05906 [64 AD3d 477] |
| July 21, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Peter Martin, Respondent, v Citibank, N.A.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Daniel J. Hansen, New York, for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered December 18,2008, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant's motion forpartial summary judgment limiting plaintiff's damages to $42,500, pursuant to a provisionallegedly contained in the safe deposit box lease agreement which plaintiff signed, affirmed,without costs.
On or about January 10, 2001, plaintiff executed a lease agreement with defendant for a safedeposit box. Plaintiff now seeks to recover for alleged losses from the box and defendant seeksto cap plaintiff's damages based on a limitation of liability provision purportedly contained in theagreement. Plaintiff maintains that he was not given all of the pages of the agreement, includingthe page containing the liability limitation clause, and thus he never had the opportunity to readthat provision.
A party to a contract is not relieved from the contract's provisions by asserting that he or shefailed to read it (see Florence v Merchants Cent. Alarm Co., 51 NY2d 793, 795 [1980];Pimpinello v Swift & Co., 253 NY 159, 162-163 [1930]). Here, however, plaintiffcontends that the agreement which he signed did not include the page containing the liabilitylimitation, and that he was not given a copy of that page. Although defendant introduced amultipage document purporting to be the contract plaintiff signed, defendant's employee whorented the box to plaintiff could not recall whether all of the pages of that agreement wereactually given to plaintiff.
The record contains other evidence which, when viewed in the light most favorable to theplaintiff and affording him every favorable inference (see Johnson v Goldberger, 286AD2d 604, 606 [2001]), lends support to plaintiff's contention that he was not provided thecomplete lease agreement. First, the agreement produced by defendant in this litigation ismissing the sixth page. Although defendant now claims, without any citation to the record, thatthis missing page is actually the signature card, defendant's employee did not know whatinformation was contained on the sixth page.
In addition, pages two and three of the agreement produced by defendant are not initialed byeither plaintiff or defendant, and the blank space on page three that is intended to contain [*2]defendant's address for notice purposes is not filled in. On the otherhand, all of the pages plaintiff admits having seen have writing on them. Finally, the staple wasremoved from the lease agreement defendant produced, raising an issue of fact as to whether theintegrity of the document was compromised. Based on this evidence, we find that plaintiff hasraised a triable issue of fact regarding whether or not he was given the entire agreement.
Although we do not disagree with the dissent's recitation of the general principle that aparty's failure to read a contract does not excuse him or her from its terms, the critical distinctionhere is that plaintiff contends that he never received the full agreement and thus could not haveread the limitation of liability clause. Although the dissent suggests that plaintiff's claim is notbelievable, the record contains more than plaintiff's bare assertion. Plaintiff's position in thislitigation is buttressed by defendant's employee's inability to recall whether plaintiff received theentire agreement, along with other evidence suggesting that plaintiff may not have received all ofthe pages. On a motion for summary judgment, the court's function is issue finding, not issuedetermination, and any questions of credibility are best resolved by the trier of fact (seeRodriguez v Parkchester S. Condominium, 178 AD2d 231 [1991]).Concur—Catterson, Renwick and Richter, JJ.
Tom, J.P., and Nardelli, J., dissent in a memorandum by Nardelli, J., as follows: I wouldreverse the court's order, and grant defendant partial summary judgment limiting plaintiff'sdamages to $42,500, and thus respectfully dissent.
It is a fundamental axiom of contract law that "a party who signs a document is conclusivelybound by its terms absent a valid excuse for having failed to read it" (Arnav Indus., Inc.Retirement Trust v Brown, Raysman, Millstein, Felder & Steiner, 96 NY2d 300, 304 [2001];see also Pimpinello v Swift & Co., 253 NY 159 [1930]).
The record clearly demonstrates that on January 10, 2001, when plaintiff leased a safedeposit box at one of the defendant bank's branches, he signed a lease which stated, on page four,in relevant part, in block letters: "RECEIPT OF A COPY OF THIS LEASE IS HEREBYACKNOWLEDGED."
At the bottom of the page was the recitation, "Page 4 of 6." Page two of the lease, on whichwas recited "Page 2 of 6," contained the following limitation of liability: "You agree that ourtotal liability for any loss or damage resulting from our negligence will be limited to an amountnot exceeding five hundred (500) times the annual rent for the Box." In this case, since theannual rental at the time of the alleged loss was $85, the applicable limitation is $42,500.
Plaintiff, despite confirming that he signed the agreement, claims that he never received pagetwo, and thus seeks to avoid the limitation. Yet, the page he signed, and acknowledges receiving,clearly indicates that there were other pages to the agreement. "Since plaintiff was competent toexecute the . . . agreement, and no fraud is alleged, he is responsible for hissignature and is bound to read and know what he signed" (Beattie v Brown & Wood, 243AD2d [*3]395 [1997]). His averment, made years later, and onlyafter a loss, that he did not receive the page, cannot be accepted as a valid excuse for avoidingthe constraints of fundamental contract law.
The majority finds it significant that the bank employee with whom plaintiff dealt when hefirst opened the safe deposit box "could not recall whether all of the pages of that agreementwere actually given to plaintiff." Yet, the box was first leased on January 10, 2001, and theemployee's deposition occurred on August 23, 2007, 6½ years later. If the employeeactually testified that he remembered giving plaintiff all the documents, his testimony would beincredible, in view of all the transactions in which he must have been involved during theintervening time.
The salient fact is that plaintiff signed a document indicating that he had received a lease. Ifhe did not receive the full document, he should have raised an objection at the time, and notcomplain years later.
Furthermore, the absence of an initial on pages two and three of the bank's copy is not, it issubmitted, determinative of anything, since page one is not initialed either. Likewise, theabsence of a staple from the document is inconsequential as to whether plaintiff registered aprotest, as he should have, at the time he signed the lease with a certification that he had receiveda multipage document.
In sum, since plaintiff has offered no excuse as to why he did not inquire in 2001 about thepurported missing pages, I see no reason to depart from the principle, enunciated above, that aparty who signs a document is conclusively bound by its terms. [See 2008 NY Slip Op33398(U).]