Price plea in New York

2025John, LLC v Yoemans, 2004 NY Slip Op 51650[U] , *5 [Sup Ct, NY County], affd 26 AD3d 266 [1st Dept 2006]).

2025John, LLC v Yoemans, 2004 NY Slip Op 51650[U] , *5 [Sup Ct, NY County], affd 26 AD3d 266 [1st Dept 2006]).

2008Thus, because the intent of the parties is readily discernible from the four corners of the agreement, and the balance of the purchase price ascertainable by obtaining a payoff amount from the holder of defendants’ mortgage at the time of closing, we hold that plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the contract for 800 Delaware Avenue (see Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d at 478 ).

1985Initially, we note that both the severance issue and defendant’s request for a mistrial, premised on “the plea bargain which took Catherine Price out of the case and required her to testify against him” (People v Miller, supra, p 1056 ), have already been reviewed in our decision in People v Miller (supra), where we concluded that the severance request was properly denied (see also, People v Close, 90 AD2d 562, 564-565 ) and that the circumstances attendant Price’s plea bargain and testimony did not warrant a mistrial.

1985Therefore, having failed to object to the trial court’s instructions or the prosecutor’s reference to Price’s plea bargain, no error of law, if any, was preserved for appeal (see, People v Gaito, 98 AD2d 909, 910 ) and we see no reason to reverse on this issue in the interest of justice.

1985Initially, we note that both the severance issue and defendant’s request for a mistrial, premised on “the plea bargain which took Catherine Price out of the case and required her to testify against him” (People v Miller, supra, p 1056 ), have already been reviewed in our decision in People v Miller (supra), where we concluded that the severance request was properly denied (see also, People v Close, 90 AD2d 562, 564-565 ) and that the circumstances attendant Price’s plea bargain and testimony did not warrant a mistrial.

1985Initially, we note that both the severance issue and defendant’s request for a mistrial, premised on “the plea bargain which took Catherine Price out of the case and required her to testify against him” (People v Miller, supra, p 1056 ), have already been reviewed in our decision in People v Miller (supra), where we concluded that the severance request was properly denied (see also, People v Close, 90 AD2d 562, 564-565 ) and that the circumstances attendant Price’s plea bargain and testimony did not warrant a mistrial.

1985Moreover, a review of the record leads inexorably to the conclusion that severance of Price’s prosecution during trial, in the absence of the jury, was not grounds for ordering a mistrial (see, People v Mirenda, 23 NY2d 439, 449-450 ).

1981Without constitutional infringement, the Grand Jury could compel the defendant to furnish the evidence sought (United States v Dionisio, 410 US 1 ; United States v Mara, 410 US 19 ), but under New York law, the price could be immunity (People v Perri, 72 AD2d 106 ).

1981Under these circumstances, the Appellate Division, Second Department, noted that the proper procedure would be for the prosecution to apply to Special Term for an order compelling the production of the physical evidence (People v Perri, supra, at p 112 ).

1981Without constitutional infringement, the Grand Jury could compel the defendant to furnish the evidence sought (United States v Dionisio, 410 US 1 ; United States v Mara, 410 US 19 ), but under New York law, the price could be immunity (People v Perri, 72 AD2d 106 ).

1981Without constitutional infringement, the Grand Jury could compel the defendant to furnish the evidence sought (United States v Dionisio, 410 US 1 ; United States v Mara, 410 US 19 ), but under New York law, the price could be immunity (People v Perri, 72 AD2d 106 ).

1937Perhaps it should here be noted that before the agreement was executed and the collateral security delivered, the Banking Department had refused to accede to the suggestion that the “ amount of this guarantee pledged by each individual guarantor could be offset against his double liability as a stockholder if, in the future, said liability should be enforced.” In this respect this case differs from such cases as Matter of *290 Central Bank ( 242 App. Div. 747 ), where the Banking Department expressly agreed to accept the pledge upon that understanding.

1894Howard v. Daly, supra. In short, payment of the two weeks’ salary was the price of the privilege of canceling the contract, not the stipulated compensation for its wrongful breach.

1882If the primary intention was that the very thing covenanted should be done, then the sum named is in the nature of a penalty to secure the performance of the principal thing; and it can make no difference in the construction of the covenant, whether damages for non-performance are left to be ascertained by an issue quantum damnificatus, or the parties themselves conclusively settle the amount. ( French v. Macale, supra; Coles v. Sims, 5 De Gex, Macnaghten and Gordon, 1; Long v. Bowring, 33 Beav. 585; Gray v. Crosby, supra; Clark v. Jones, 1 Denio, 516 .) In Long v. Bowring the damages were liq

1882If the primary intention was that the very thing covenanted should be done, then the sum named is in the nature of a penalty to secure the performance of the principal thing; and it can make no difference in the construction of the covenant, whether damages for non-performance are left to be ascertained by an issue quantum damnificatus, or the parties themselves conclusively settle the amount. ( French v. Macale, supra; Coles v. Sims, 5 De Gex, Macnaghten and Gordon, 1; Long v. Bowring, 33 Beav. 585; Gray v. Crosby, supra; Clark v. Jones, 1 Denio, 516 .) In Long v. Bowring the damages were liq