Opinion
January 22, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs failed to establish that the contract at issue "was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable when made" (Gillman v Chase Manhattan Bank, 73 N.Y.2d 1, 10). In addition, this was not one of those exceptional cases in which "a provision of the contract is so outrageous as to warrant holding it unenforceable on the ground of substantive unconscionability alone" (Gillman v Chase Manhattan Bank, supra, at 12). In fact, the defendant submitted evidence in support of its cross motion for summary judgment establishing that the price charged was not excessive. Since this evidence was unrefuted by the plaintiffs, a hearing on the issue of unconscionability was not warranted (cf., Matter of State of New York v Avco Fin. Serv., 50 N.Y.2d 383, 390; State of New York v Wolowitz, 96 A.D.2d 47, 68-69). Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.