## Facts

- Two guests stayed at a Manhattan hotel in November 1979 and claimed they possessed jewelry worth about $1,000,000 each.
- Each guest deposited jewelry with the hotel for safekeeping and signed a “Safe Deposit Box Receipt” stating the hotel’s liability for loss was limited to $500 and that the box contents would not exceed $500.
- The hotel’s security arrangement used rows of safe-deposit boxes that required two keys (one held by the guest).
- The safe-deposit boxes were located in a room built of plasterboard with two hollow-core wooden doors; one had an ordinary tumbler lock and the other had no lock.
- Plaintiffs alleged the room was unlocked and unattended, accessible to the public, and that identifying records about box users and access were visible.
- On November 25, 1979, thieves broke into multiple boxes, including plaintiffs’, and stole the jewelry.
- Plaintiffs sued to recover full damages, alleging negligence and disputing any statutory or contractual limitation of liability.

## Issues

1. Whether the hotel established, as a matter of law, that it provided a “safe” within the meaning of New York General Business Law § 200 so as to qualify for the statute’s limited liability for valuables delivered for safekeeping.
2. Whether the signed receipt independently and enforceably limited the hotel’s liability to $500 even if the statutory conditions for limitation were not met.
3. Whether summary judgment limiting liability was proper where the adequacy of the hotel’s security facility was disputed.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the order granting partial summary judgment that capped the hotel’s liability.
- The court held the hotel could not obtain the benefit of GBL § 200’s limitation unless it proved it provided a statutory “safe.”
- The record presented material issues of fact as to whether the facility’s overall security qualified as a “safe” under GBL § 200, making summary judgment improper.
- The court held the $500 receipt was not independently enforceable to displace the statutory scheme and could not by itself cap liability if the statutory requirements were not satisfied.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- An innkeeper seeking the protection of GBL § 200 bears the burden to show compliance with the statute’s conditions, including provision of a “safe” for secure storage.
- A “safe” under GBL § 200 requires a reasonably secure facility; a nominal label or container is insufficient if overall conditions do not provide reasonable protection against theft.
- When evidence conflicts about the adequacy of the security measures provided, whether the facility qualifies as a statutory “safe” is a fact question that generally precludes summary judgment.
- A private receipt purporting to limit liability cannot independently circumvent or replace the Legislature’s conditions for limiting an innkeeper’s liability under GBL § 200.

## Conclusion

The court held that a hotel cannot cap liability under GBL § 200 without proving it provided a qualifying “safe,” and disputed evidence about the facility’s security required fact-finding; a standard receipt limiting liability to $500 could not independently impose the statutory limitation.


Goncalves v. Regent Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 58 N.Y.2d 206 (N.Y. 1983)