Renee Knitwear Corp. v. ADT Security Systems, Northeast, Inc.

277 A.D.2d 215, 715 N.Y.S.2d 341, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11177
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 6, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 215 (Renee Knitwear Corp. v. ADT Security Systems, Northeast, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Renee Knitwear Corp. v. ADT Security Systems, Northeast, Inc., 277 A.D.2d 215, 715 N.Y.S.2d 341, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11177 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for injury to property, the plaintiff [216]*216appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), entered September 14, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on the limitations period contained in the parties’ contract. It is well settled that parties to a contract may agree that a lawsuit must be commenced within a shorter period than that prescribed by law (see, CPLR 201; Blitman v Constr. Corp. v Insurance Co., 66 NY2d 820; Kassner & Co. v City of New York, 46 NY2d 544). In addition, a party who signs a written contract “is conclusively presumed to know its contents and to assent to them” (Metzger v Aetna Ins. Co., 227 NY 411, 416), and the signer is bound by its terms unless there is a showing of fraud, duress, or some other wrongful act on the part of any party to the contract (see, Barclays Bank v Sokol, 128 AD2d 492). The plaintiff concedes that the action was not commenced within the one year limitation period provided by the contract, and we reject its argument that the provision was unconscionable because it was hidden within the body of the contract. Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Aguasvivas v. Mountain Val. Indem. Co.
2025 NY Slip Op 50149(U) (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, 2025)
Akter v. Interboro Ins. Co.
2024 NY Slip Op 51483(U) (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, 2024)
Pappas v. B & G Holding Co.
2024 NY Slip Op 51218(U) (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, 2024)
Sebco Dev., Inc. v. Siegel & Reiner, LLP
2024 NY Slip Op 50292(U) (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, 2024)
Kanner v. Westchester Med. Group, P.L.L.C.
New York Supreme Court, 2023
Lardon Constr. Corp. v. Mark Cerrone, Inc.
219 A.D.3d 1116 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Matter of Ilich
New York Supreme Court, 2023
Buck Constr. & Dev., Inc. v. Hetzel
2018 NY Slip Op 6875 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Prompt Mortgage Providers of North America, LLC v. Zarour
2017 NY Slip Op 1723 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Corbett v. FIRSTLINE SECURITY, INC.
687 F. Supp. 2d 124 (E.D. New York, 2009)
Blanar v. State Farm Insurance Companies
34 A.D.3d 1333 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Coe
313 F. Supp. 2d 603 (S.D. West Virginia, 2004)
Choung v. Allstate Insurance
283 A.D.2d 468 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
277 A.D.2d 215, 715 N.Y.S.2d 341, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/renee-knitwear-corp-v-adt-security-systems-northeast-inc-nyappdiv-2000.