insertion clause in New York

1995Schulte, Inc. v Loft, Inc., 271 NY 420 , rearg denied 272 NY 535 [1936].) The primary reason for the dearth of case law on this subject is due to the insertion of a waiver of the right of redemption in today’s standard form leases.

1995Schulte, Inc. v Loft, Inc., 271 NY 420 , rearg denied 272 NY 535 [1936].) The primary reason for the dearth of case law on this subject is due to the insertion of a waiver of the right of redemption in today’s standard form leases.

1992Since the effect of the judicial gloss we have mentioned is the insertion of a requirement in Court of Claims Act § 11 that service be effected upon the Authority as well as the Attorney-General, the benefits as well as the burdens of that statute should be conferred upon prospective claimants.” ( 108 AD2d 181,184-185 , supra.) 4 This reasoning applies with equal force to the issue pres ently before me, notwithstanding the repeal of the specific statutory provision in question in Muller (supra).

1992Since the effect of the judicial gloss we have mentioned is the insertion of a requirement in Court of Claims Act § 11 that service be effected upon the Authority as well as the Attorney-General, the benefits as well as the burdens of that statute should be conferred upon prospective claimants.” ( 108 AD2d 181,184-185 , supra.) 4 This reasoning applies with equal force to the issue pres ently before me, notwithstanding the repeal of the specific statutory provision in question in Muller (supra).

1980There the Court of Appeals said (supra, p 295): “The omission [from the agreement] becomes especially important in light of the inability of courts to effect any change in an adequate level of support fixed by a valid and unimpeached separation agreement unless it has been merged in a judgment of divorce (Goldman v Goldman, 282 NY 296,302-304 ; Schmelzel v Schmelzel, 287 NY 21,26-27 ; 2 Foster and Freed, Law and the Family, § 28.64)” (emphasis supplied).

1980There the Court of Appeals said (supra, p 295): “The omission [from the agreement] becomes especially important in light of the inability of courts to effect any change in an adequate level of support fixed by a valid and unimpeached separation agreement unless it has been merged in a judgment of divorce (Goldman v Goldman, 282 NY 296,302-304 ; Schmelzel v Schmelzel, 287 NY 21,26-27 ; 2 Foster and Freed, Law and the Family, § 28.64)” (emphasis supplied).

1980In support of his argument that by the insertion of this clause in their agreement the parties thereby intended to confer upon a court jurisdiction to modify the agreement insofar as it purports to fix the level of support for wife and children “at any time” counsel cites Bowmer v Bowmer ( 50 NY2d 288 ).

1971(Cohen) ( 8 Misc 2d 594 ); East Side Garage v. New Brunswick Fire Ins.

1956By the respondents’ own concession, this portion of the rule undertakes on its face to “ ban proper use and improper use indiscriminately ” (Matter of Cherry v. Board of Regents, 289 N. Y. 148, 160 , supra) and must be held to be invalid.

1930In Percival v. Williams ( 82 Vt. 531, 547 ) there was considered a case where reservations of easements, to which a grant was made “ subject,” had been extinguished when the grant was executed.

1928There are authorities against the views above expressed (Hump ston v. State Mutual Life Assurance Co., 148 Tenn. 439 ; 256 S. W. 438 ; Missouri State Life Ins.

1927The contract in Levy Corp. v. Dick ( 116 Misc.

1927A. Meyer and Son, dated Sept. 1, 1905.’ We think that the insertion of this clause indicated an intention to rely on the survey as to the Hues of the property and possible encroachments, and is inconsistent with the contention that plaintiff relied upon the misrepresentation and was led thereby to make the contract.” See, also, March v. Marasco ( 165 App. Div. 348 ), where Mr. Justice Dowling, writing for that court, referred to encroachments objected to as follows: “ The encroachments claimed to have existed did not constitute a valid objection in view of the terms of sale under which the pro

1917Its performance cannot for any purpose be presumed, but must, to be availed of, be alleged and proved.” (See, also, Winter v. City of Niagara Falls, 190 N. Y. 198 .) While it is quite true that one purpose of the insertion of this requirement for security is to indemnify the People of the State and to reheve them from any expense in the prosecution of actions of this character, and while it may seem that it makes but little difference to the defendant as to whether the security is given or not, as the People of the State are responsible to him for his costs if he is successful, still another p

1916(United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40 ; Rees v. City of Watertown, 19 Wall. 107 .) No adjudication which is not absolutely essential to the disposition of an issue in a special proceeding or a litigation is a judicial act or duty.

1916(United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40 ; Rees v. City of Watertown, 19 Wall. 107 .) No adjudication which is not absolutely essential to the disposition of an issue in a special proceeding or a litigation is a judicial act or duty.

1913Of these privileges, perhaps the most important was that of recovering from the vendor the amount paid on account of the purchase price * * * and this remained wholly urn affected by the consent * * * that the sale * * * need not.be * * * at public auction. * * * There were some other claims of waiver, but they presented questions of fact which were disposed of by the verdict.” The decision in Roach v. Curtis, supra,, is referred to in Watertown National Bank v. Bagley, 134 App. Div. 831, 836 , where the court say: “ This law (Lien Law) was also enacted for the protection of poor people agains

1913Of these privileges, perhaps the most important was that of recovering from the vendor the amount paid on account of the purchase price * * * and this remained wholly urn affected by the consent * * * that the sale * * * need not.be * * * at public auction. * * * There were some other claims of waiver, but they presented questions of fact which were disposed of by the verdict.” The decision in Roach v. Curtis, supra,, is referred to in Watertown National Bank v. Bagley, 134 App. Div. 831, 836 , where the court say: “ This law (Lien Law) was also enacted for the protection of poor people agains

1913Of these privileges, perhaps the most important was that of recovering from the vendor the amount paid on account of the purchase price * * * and this remained wholly urn affected by the consent * * * that the sale * * * need not.be * * * at public auction. * * * There were some other claims of waiver, but they presented questions of fact which were disposed of by the verdict.” The decision in Roach v. Curtis, supra,, is referred to in Watertown National Bank v. Bagley, 134 App. Div. 831, 836 , where the court say: “ This law (Lien Law) was also enacted for the protection of poor people agains

1894Since the decision of Lauer v. Dunn, supra, and McCorkle v. Herman, 117 N. Y. 297 ; 27 St; Rep. 333, the only method of effectual protection of laborers, material men and subcontractors from the schemes of unscrupulous contractors by secret assignments of the contract is through the insertion of such a clause as this one in the contract.

1890The act of 1885, presenting the question herein to be discussed, is as follows: “After the passage of this act, all property which shall pass by will or by the intestate laws of this state from any person who may die seised or possessed of the same, while being a resident of the state, or which property shall be within this state,” etc. The alteration made by the act of 1887, to which reference has been made, was accomplished by the insertion of a clause after the words “while a resident of this state, or,” as follows: “If such decedent was not a resident of this state at the time of his death

1884The insertion of this clause in the assignment is evidence of a fraudulent intent on the part of the assignor, and renders the assignment void (Rapalee v. Stewart, 27 N. Y. 310 ).

1864And that what is just and reasonable will be determined by the court on an accounting. ( 33 Barb. 425 .) It is further held in Campbell et al. v. Woodworth et al. ( 24 N. Y.

1864And that what is just and reasonable will be determined by the court on an accounting. ( 33 Barb. 425 .) It is further held in Campbell et al. v. Woodworth et al. ( 24 N. Y.

1864The insertion of a clause in an assignment providing for the payment of “all reasonable charges and commissions attending the execution thereof” has been held not to invalidate the assignment. ( 34 Barb. 422 .) So it has been held that a provision. in an assignment for the benefit of creditors (giving preferences) that the assignees shall first be paid all expenses necessarily incurred in the execution of the trust, including the charges of drawing the assignment, together with a just and reasonable compensation for the labor, time, services and attention of the assignees about the trust, does