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.