Radelman v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. — 61 Misc. 2d 669

Majority

p. 669

Reina Radelman, Respondent, v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

October 8, 1969.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (Henry Landau and James P. Barrett of counsel), for appellant. Allen M. Bosenthal for respondent.

The terms set forth in the safe-deposit box lease executed by plaintiff constitute a valid contract between the parties herein (see Banking Law, § 96, subds. 3, 6; Coons v. First Nat. Bank, 218 App. Div. 283 ). In our opinion, the lease provision prohibiting the deposit of money in the box is neither unconscionable nor offensive to public policy which imposes no limitation or restriction on the freedom of contract between a bank and its depositors (Gaita v. Windsor Bank, 251 N. Y. 152 ; Sagendorph v. First Nat. Bank, 218 App. Div. 285 ; David v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 59 Misc 2d 248 ). Plaintiff, having executed the lease, is, in the absence of fraud or undue

p. 670

influence, conclusively bound by the terms therein (Pimpinello v. Swift & Co., 253 N. Y. 159 , 162-163; Metzger v. Aetna Ins. Co., 227 N. Y. 411 , 415-416; James Talcott, Inc. v. Wilson Hosiery Co., 32 A D 2d 524 ; Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Jaybert Esso Serv. Station, 30 A D 2d 952 ).

The order should be unanimously reversed, with $10 costs to defendant, motion granted and complaint dismissed.

Concur — Groat, P. J., Schwarzwald and Hargett, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.

Cases cited

Gaita v. Windsor Bank 251 N. Y. 152 N.Y. 1929-05-28 p. 669
David v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. 59 Misc 2d 248 N.Y. App. Term 1969-02-05 p. 669
Pimpinello v. Swift & Co. 253 N. Y. 159 N.Y. 1930-02-11 at 162-163 p. 670
Metzger v. Ætna Insurance 227 N. Y. 411 N.Y. 1920-01-06 at 415-416 p. 670

Statutes and regulations cited

Banking Law p. 669