defendant bases claim in New York

2006To the extent the defendant bases his claim on the post-enhanced sentence dismissal of the robbery indictment, it is not properly raised on this appeal because it involves a matter which is dehors the record (see generally People v Velazquez, 21 AD3d 388 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 857 [2005]). “[A]ppellate review of the defendant’s contention that his enhanced sentence is harsh and excessive is precluded by the knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal” (People v Miles, supra at 490 ).

2006To the extent the defendant bases his claim on the post-enhanced sentence dismissal of the robbery indictment, it is not properly raised on this appeal because it involves a matter which is dehors the record (see generally People v Velazquez, 21 AD3d 388 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 857 [2005]). “[A]ppellate review of the defendant’s contention that his enhanced sentence is harsh and excessive is precluded by the knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal” (People v Miles, supra at 490 ).

2006To the extent the defendant bases his claim on the post-enhanced sentence dismissal of the robbery indictment, it is not properly raised on this appeal because it involves a matter which is dehors the record (see generally People v Velazquez, 21 AD3d 388 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 857 [2005]). “[A]ppellate review of the defendant’s contention that his enhanced sentence is harsh and excessive is precluded by the knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal” (People v Miles, supra at 490 ).

1992This issue is unpreserved for review since it was not raised with specificity in the trial court (see, People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858 ).

1962The defendant bases his defense primarily upon the cases: Matter of Eimco Corp. ( 6 Misc 2d 422 ) and Union Oil Co. of Calif. v. Lull ( 220 Ore. 412 ).

1962In the ease of Eimco Corp. (supra) the court there referred to the holding in Matter of Arthur Philip Export Corp. (Leatherstone, Inc.) ( 275 App. Div. 102 ) "which held that a party should not be bound by clauses printed on the reverse side of a document unless it be established that such matter was properly called to its attention and that it assented to the provisions there stated, but in the same case the court recognized the fact that whether the intent of the parties was to have the matters on the face of the contract include the matters on the reverse side is a question to be decided on

1962The defendant bases his defense primarily upon the cases: Matter of Eimco Corp. ( 6 Misc 2d 422 ) and Union Oil Co. of Calif. v. Lull ( 220 Ore. 412 ).

1935Co., 99 N. Y. 124 ; Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Park & Pollard Co., 190 App. Div. 388 ; affd., 229 N. Y. 631 .) The defendant bases its claim of a clear and unequivocal intention to confine the obligation of the defendant to indemnity for payments made, upon the words “ to pay and shall pay ” in the first sentence of section I quoted above, and to the word “ payments ” in the second paragraph of section I above quoted as it occurs in the sentence “ the liability of the Re-insurer hereunder is limited exclusively to actual compensation payments to employees excluding all medical, hospital

1935Co., 99 N. Y. 124 ; Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Park & Pollard Co., 190 App. Div. 388 ; affd., 229 N. Y. 631 .) The defendant bases its claim of a clear and unequivocal intention to confine the obligation of the defendant to indemnity for payments made, upon the words “ to pay and shall pay ” in the first sentence of section I quoted above, and to the word “ payments ” in the second paragraph of section I above quoted as it occurs in the sentence “ the liability of the Re-insurer hereunder is limited exclusively to actual compensation payments to employees excluding all medical, hospital

1935Co., 99 N. Y. 124 ; Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Park & Pollard Co., 190 App. Div. 388 ; affd., 229 N. Y. 631 .) The defendant bases its claim of a clear and unequivocal intention to confine the obligation of the defendant to indemnity for payments made, upon the words “ to pay and shall pay ” in the first sentence of section I quoted above, and to the word “ payments ” in the second paragraph of section I above quoted as it occurs in the sentence “ the liability of the Re-insurer hereunder is limited exclusively to actual compensation payments to employees excluding all medical, hospital

1928(Seeley v. Prentiss Tool & Supply Co., 158 App. Div. 853 ; Boschen v. Multicolor Sales Co., Inc., 98 Misc. 637 ; McDougall v. Shoemaker, 236 N. Y. 127 .) The defendant bases its claim upon the creation of a new contract between the parties that excuses its failure to comply with the provisions of the statute to sell the property taken within thirty days thereafter.

1928(Seeley v. Prentiss Tool & Supply Co., 158 App. Div. 853 ; Boschen v. Multicolor Sales Co., Inc., 98 Misc. 637 ; McDougall v. Shoemaker, 236 N. Y. 127 .) The defendant bases its claim upon the creation of a new contract between the parties that excuses its failure to comply with the provisions of the statute to sell the property taken within thirty days thereafter.

1928(Seeley v. Prentiss Tool & Supply Co., 158 App. Div. 853 ; Boschen v. Multicolor Sales Co., Inc., 98 Misc. 637 ; McDougall v. Shoemaker, 236 N. Y. 127 .) The defendant bases its claim upon the creation of a new contract between the parties that excuses its failure to comply with the provisions of the statute to sell the property taken within thirty days thereafter.

1924In Haight v. Haight & Freese Co., 112 App. Div. 475, 480 , the court stated: “All of these accounts upon which the defendant bases its defense were thus shown to be false upon their face.” Rendition of these unimpeached statements and the acknowledgment of their correctness constituted an account stated as conclusive as a release.

1898Bk., 124 Mass. 571 ; and McIners v. Estabrook, 134 id. 550; but it will be found that these cases relate to buildings erected by the tenant or to bank vaults and such like permanent and substantial structures put up by him, which became appurtenant to the land, and consequently an incident of the subject-matter rehired as part of the premises and their appurtenances.

1898The defendant bases this claim upon Loughran v. Ross, 45 N. Y. 792 ; Talbot v. Cruger, 81 Hun, 504 ; affirmed, 151 N. Y. 118 ; Watriss v. First Nat.

1898The defendant bases this claim upon Loughran v. Ross, 45 N. Y. 792 ; Talbot v. Cruger, 81 Hun, 504 ; affirmed, 151 N. Y. 118 ; Watriss v. First Nat.