In Melodee Lane Lingerie Co. v. American District Telegraph Co., 18 N.Y.2d 57, 218 N.E.2d 661, 271 N.Y.S.2d 937 (1966), plaintiff tenant store sought to recover for damage to its merchandise caused by water that escaped from a sprinkler head on the premises. The premises was covered by an alarm system which was designed to give warning of escaping water from the sprinklers. In addition to suing the owner and manager of the premises, plaintiff also sued the alarm company, alleging negligent maintenance and/or repair to the alarm system. The alarm company's contract contained a limitations clause which provided for a maximum liability of $ 50 or a sum equal to ten percent of the then current annual service charge ($ 561.00), whichever was greater. In determining the extent of the alarm company's potential indemnification liability, the Court of Appeals held that the predecessor to General Obligations Law 5-323 (Real Property Law Section 235) was applicable to the sprinkler alarm contract and that limitations of liability clauses are valid notwithstanding the statute if the customer is given "a voluntary choice of obtaining full or limited liability by paying under a graduated scale of rates proportioned to the responsibility in transportation or other service rendered." Melodee Lane Lingerie Co. v. American District Telegraph Co., 18 N.Y.2d 57, 69, 218 N.E.2d 661, 271 N.Y.S.2d 937 (1966). The Court of Appeals concluded that because there was no opportunity given to the subscriber to pay an annual service charge, if it so chose, consonant with full liability, the limitation of liability clause was invalid.