penalty violation in New York

2013Auth., 108 AD3d 914 , 915 [2013]; Matter of Martinez v LeFrak City Mgt., 100 AD3d 1110 , 1111 [2012]; Matter of Poli v Taconic Correctional Facility, 83 AD3d 1339, 1339-1340 [2011]).

2013Auth., 108 AD3d 914 , 915 [2013]; Matter of Martinez v LeFrak City Mgt., 100 AD3d 1110 , 1111 [2012]; Matter of Poli v Taconic Correctional Facility, 83 AD3d 1339, 1339-1340 [2011]).

2013Auth., 108 AD3d 914 , 915 [2013]; Matter of Martinez v LeFrak City Mgt., 100 AD3d 1110 , 1111 [2012]; Matter of Poli v Taconic Correctional Facility, 83 AD3d 1339, 1339-1340 [2011]).

2013Auth., 108 AD3d 914 , 915 [2013]; Matter of Martinez v LeFrak City Mgt., 100 AD3d 1110 , 1111 [2012]; Matter of Poli v Taconic Correctional Facility, 83 AD3d 1339, 1339-1340 [2011]).

1940(Bull v. Burton, 227 N. Y. 101 ; Isaacs v. Schmuck, supra.) The penalty for a violation of this covenant goes beyond payment of money or subjection to an injunction; the title reverts to the heirs of the vendors of 1834.

1928(Bull v. Burton, 227 N. Y. 101 ; Isaacs v. Schmuck, supra.) The penalty for a violation of this covenant goes beyond payment of money or subjection to an injunction; the title reverts to the heirs of the vendors of 1834.

1940(Bull v. Burton, 227 N. Y. 101 ; Isaacs v. Schmuck, supra.) The penalty for a violation of this covenant goes beyond payment of money or subjection to an injunction; the title reverts to the heirs of the vendors of 1834.

1928(Bull v. Burton, 227 N. Y. 101 ; Isaacs v. Schmuck, supra.) The penalty for a violation of this covenant goes beyond payment of money or subjection to an injunction; the title reverts to the heirs of the vendors of 1834.

1913I do not think the case of McNall v. Kales ( 61 Hun, 231 ) supports the contention that the board of health should in advance have fixed the amount of the penalty for a violation of this special order.

1901If it affixes a penalty for its violation, it would seem that such penalty should be a fixed and certain sum, and not left to the discretion of the officer or court which is to impose it on conviction; though a by-law imposing a penalty not exceeding a certain- sum has been held not to be void for -uncertainty.” The authorities cited in support of both of these propositions are outside this jurisdiction, but in McNall v. Kales ( 61 Hun, 231 ) it was held that a regulation that “ The local board of health will enforce compliance and inflict a penalty not exceeding a hundred dollars ($100) for n

1897Stone v. Chisolm, 113 U. S. 302 -309, 5 Sup. Ct. 497.

1897(Stone v. Chisolm, 113 U. S. 302, 309 .) ■Again, the amount of the directors’ liability when ascertained cannot, from the very nature of things, be appropriated towards the payment of any particular debt, but must rather be regarded as a fund out of which all .the creditors are to be paid alike.

2023"We will not disturb the Board's imposition of a penalty for a violation of that statute so long as the determination is supported by substantial evidence" ( Matter of Banton v New York City Dept. of Corr. , 112 AD3d 1195 , 1196 [3d Dept 2013] [citations omitted]).

2018This penalty analysis is objective: it looks solely at "other penalties" which are "attache[d] to the offense" as a measure of "seriousness" ( id. at 542 ).

2018As one state court put it, "the existence of a federal statute says nothing about how the [state] Legislature views the offense" ( State v Race , 413 P3d 799 [Kan Ct App 2018] [table; text at 2018 WL 1247211 , *3, 2018 Kan App Unpub LEXIS 167, *9 (2018)] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2018Rather than focus on the defendant's knowledge of the consequences of waiving a constitutional right, the{**32 NY3d at 513} determining factor is the legislature's view of the seriousness of the crime or how "the Legislature categorized the offense" ( Lewis , 518 US at 327 ).

2018In other words, we assess whether a " particular legislature deemed a particular offense serious" ( Nachtigal , 507 US at 4 [emphasis added and internal quotation marks omitted]).{**32 NY3d at 510} II.

2018Rather than focus on the defendant's knowledge of the consequences of waiving a constitutional right, the{**32 NY3d at 513} determining factor is the legislature's view of the seriousness of the crime or how "the Legislature categorized the offense" ( Lewis , 518 US at 327 ).

2018Assoc. v Garage Estates Co., 280 AD2d 251, 254 ), a party's level of sophistication does not grant it license to enter into contracts contrary to public policy ( see e.g. 172 Van Duzer Realty Corp. v Globe Alumni Student Assistance Assn., Inc., 24 NY3d 528, 532, 536 [matter involving a "one-year commercial rental lease agreement" remitted for hearing on issue of [*12]whether liquidated damages clause constituted a penalty in violation of public policy]; John J.

2012No rent shall be recovered by the owner of such premises for said period, and no action or special proceeding shall be maintained therefor, or for possession of said premises for nonpayment of such rent.” Section 301 of the Multiple Dwelling Law, referred to above in paragraph (a), requires the issuance of a C of O before a multiple dwelling may be “occupied in whole or in part.” (Multiple Dwelling Law § 301 [1].) In Ying Lung Corp., focusing on the words “structure” and “human habitation” in Multiple Dwelling Law § 302 (1) (a), the court opined that “[t]he statutory language making the strong

2012The court in Elizabeth Broome Realty Corp. reasoned that Multiple Dwelling Law § 302 (1) extended to commercial tenants because “the statute contains no words of limitation restricting its application to residential premises, or limiting the availability of this defense to residential tenants” ( 157 Misc 2d at 574 ).

2007(See Corning v Village of Laurel Hollow, 48 NY2d 348, 351 [1979]; Judson v City of Niagara Falls, 140 App Div 62, 65-67 [4th Dept 1910], affd 204 NY 630 [1912]; Blood v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 121 AD2d at 134 .) The motion to be relieved as counsel is denied with leave to renew after determination of any renewed motion by plaintiff for a penalty for violation of the August 9, 2006 order of Honorable Martin M.

2007(See Corning v Village of Laurel Hollow, 48 NY2d 348, 351 [1979]; Judson v City of Niagara Falls, 140 App Div 62, 65-67 [4th Dept 1910], affd 204 NY 630 [1912]; Blood v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 121 AD2d at 134 .) The motion to be relieved as counsel is denied with leave to renew after determination of any renewed motion by plaintiff for a penalty for violation of the August 9, 2006 order of Honorable Martin M.

2006The penalty for violation of the Dearborn ordinance was “a fine not exceeding the sum of $500 or imprisonment. . . not exceeding ninety days or both” ( 418 F3d at 603 ).