Opinion
April 30, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.).
Defendant will not be excused from the agreement he executed by reason of his failure or purported inability to read it (see, Chemical Bank v Masters, 176 A.D.2d 591, 592). The record, including defendant's own statements, shows him to be a sophisticated businessman capable of clearly expressing his intent (see generally, Matter of Helmsley [Wien], 173 A.D.2d 280), who understood the essential nature of the agreement (cf., National Bank v Chu, 47 N.Y.2d 946, revg for reasons stated in dissenting mem 64 A.D.2d 573, 575-577). Defendant has also not shown that plaintiff was aware, or should have been aware, of defendant's alleged misunderstanding (see, Sterling Natl. Bank Trust Co. v I.S.A. Merchandising Corp., 91 A.D.2d 571, 572).
We have considered defendant's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Rosenberger, Wallach and Smith, JJ.