printed clause in New York

2019People v Martinez , 61 Misc 3d 135 [A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51514[U] , *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]; People v Scott , 47 Misc 3d 138 [A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50588[U] , *1-2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]; People v Benitez , 44 Misc 3d 129 [A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50987[U] , *1-2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]; People v Maldonado , 42 Misc 3d 81 , 85 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]; People v Austin , 34 Misc 3d 136 [A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52402[U] , *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

2014Additionally, the Supreme Court did not merely rely on the defendant's execution of the printed waiver form, but conducted an adequate waiver inquiry on the record ( cf. People v DeSimone , 80 NY2d at 282-283 ).

2014Additionally, the Supreme Court did not merely rely on the defendant’s execution of the printed waiver form, but conducted an adequate waiver inquiry on the record (cf. People v DeSimone, 80 NY2d at 282-283 ).

2014Moreover, the court took care not to group the right to appeal with the trial rights automatically forfeited as the consequence of a plea of guilty ( cf. People v Lopez , 6 NY3d at 257 ).

2014Moreover, the court took care not to group the right to appeal with the trial rights automatically forfeited as the consequence of a plea of guilty (cf. People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 257 ).

1997(People v Pierre, 140 Misc 2d 623 [Crim Ct, NY County 1988], supra.) Furthermore, the 12-year-old complainant was brought before the court for an examination as to his understanding of an oath and issues surrounding the order of protection.

1957A contract, the making of which was induced by deceitful methods or crafty device, is nothing more than a scrap of paper, and it makes no difference whether the fraud goes to the factum, or whether it is preliminary to the execution of the agreement itself.” (Angerosa v. White Co., supra, 248 App. Div. 425, 431 , affd. 275 N. Y. 524 .) And, in the Ernst Iron Works case (supra, 270 N. Y. 165, 169 ), the.court wrote, “ A rogue cannot protect himself from liability for his fraud by inserting a printed clause in his contract.

1957A contract, the making of which was induced by deceitful methods or crafty device, is nothing more than a scrap of paper, and it makes no difference whether the fraud goes to the factum, or whether it is preliminary to the execution of the agreement itself.” (Angerosa v. White Co., supra, 248 App. Div. 425, 431 , affd. 275 N. Y. 524 .) And, in the Ernst Iron Works case (supra, 270 N. Y. 165, 169 ), the.court wrote, “ A rogue cannot protect himself from liability for his fraud by inserting a printed clause in his contract.

1957A contract, the making of which was induced by deceitful methods or crafty device, is nothing more than a scrap of paper, and it makes no difference whether the fraud goes to the factum, or whether it is preliminary to the execution of the agreement itself.” (Angerosa v. White Co., supra, 248 App. Div. 425, 431 , affd. 275 N. Y. 524 .) And, in the Ernst Iron Works case (supra, 270 N. Y. 165, 169 ), the.court wrote, “ A rogue cannot protect himself from liability for his fraud by inserting a printed clause in his contract.

1941The case of Stewart v. Stone ( 127 N. Y. 500 ), also cited by the plaintiff, is likewise unfavorable to his contentions as to the pertinent law herein.

1941Co., 82 id. 543.) ” (Italics supplied.) Perhaps additional consideration would be given the plaintiff-purchaser herein if he were illiterate, or blind, or ignorant of the alien language of the printed clause on the carton, or were the contents thereof misread or misrepresented to him by the defendant; (Pimpinello v. Swift & Co., Inc., 253 N. Y. 159 ; Smith v. Ryan, 191 id. 452; Whipple v. Brown Bros.

1931The lease having come to an end by the tenant’s removal in obedience to the precept (Cornwell v. Sanford, 222 N. Y. 248 ), even though the agreement for surrender and acceptance pleaded by the tenant had not been made, the defendant was entitled to credit the security deposited by him against the January rent for non-payment of which the proceeding had been brought.

1924In the language of Judge Vann in Matter of Field, supra, 457: “ The natural end of a will is where the draftsman stopped writing in the consecutive order of composition, * * *„ Form should not be raised above substance in order to destroy a will and the substantial thing in this case is a paper which reads straightforward and without interruption from the beginning to the end and when thus read the signature is found at the end.” In Matter of Serveira, supra, the name of the executor was written in a printed clause after the signature, and the court disregarded the additional matter as immater

1924In Matter of Gibson, supra, there was a marginal interlineation in the will which extended below the signature of the testator, only disposing of property in certain events in the same manner in which it would be distributed by law.

1924In the language of Judge Vann in Matter of Field, supra, 457: “ The natural end of a will is where the draftsman stopped writing in the consecutive order of composition, * * *„ Form should not be raised above substance in order to destroy a will and the substantial thing in this case is a paper which reads straightforward and without interruption from the beginning to the end and when thus read the signature is found at the end.” In Matter of Serveira, supra, the name of the executor was written in a printed clause after the signature, and the court disregarded the additional matter as immater