Opinion
March 17, 1994
Appeal from the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, Louis B. York, J.
Kenneth Adler Associates, Melville (Kenneth Adler of counsel), and Schnader, Harrison, Segal Lewis, New York City (Steve D. Shadowen and Robert B. Dunham of counsel), for appellant.
Storch Amini Munves, P.C., New York City, for respondent.
Order entered June 21, 1993 reversed, with $10 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
As a result of the loss in transit of goods shipped by plaintiff Mohertus Trading Company, defendant United Parcel Service (UPS) tendered and plaintiff accepted payment of $6,000, representing the declared value of the shipment as reflected in the shipping receipt presented to and signed by plaintiff's officer. In this action plaintiff seeks additional recompense of approximately $10,000, upon allegations that the $6,000 declaration of value contained in the shipping receipt represented a "mutual mistake" said to have occurred when plaintiff's officer "asked the UPS representative to insure [the] package for $16,000" and the UPS agent "mistakingly entered" the lower value. We find plaintiff's conclusory assertions insufficient to raise a triable issue, and thus grant defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The signature of plaintiff's officer, a sophisticated business executive, provides "the most satisfactory evidence of its agreement to the statement of released value" conspicuously set out in the shipping receipt (Boeing Co. v U.S.A.C. Transp., 539 F.2d 1228, 1231) and plaintiff will not be excused from the binding terms of the document by reason of its officer's purported failure to read it (see, Pimpinello v Swift Co., 253 N.Y. 159, 162-163; Chemical Bank v Masters, 176 A.D.2d 591). Nor has plaintiff shown that defendant's agent was aware, or should have been aware, of plaintiff's alleged misunderstanding (see, Sterling Natl. Bank Trust Co. v U.S.A. Merchandising Corp., 91 A.D.2d 571, 572).
Moreover, it would be inappropriate for plaintiff, which accepted and negotiated without objection defendant's settlement check in the amount specified in the shipping receipt, to now be allowed additional recovery for the loss on a full value basis. "'Having accepted the benefit of the lower rate dependent upon the specified valuation, the [plaintiff] is estopped from asserting a higher value. To allow [plaintiff] to do so would be to violate the plainest principles of fair dealing.'" (Boeing Co. v U.S.A.C. Transp., supra, 539 F.2d, at 1231, quoting American Ry. Express Co. v Lindenburg, 260 U.S. 584, 592.)
PARNESS, J.P., MILLER and McCOOE, JJ., concur.