literal requirement in New York

2000The consistent rule has been that an affidavit of merit is required (Kougianos v City of New York, 234 AD2d 14 ; Bergan v Home for Incurables, 124 AD2d 517 ).

2000The consistent rule has been that an affidavit of merit is required (Kougianos v City of New York, 234 AD2d 14 ; Bergan v Home for Incurables, 124 AD2d 517 ).

1989Co. v Kranz, 96 Misc 2d 396 ; see also, Balram v Etheridge, 113 Misc 2d 251 [Civ Ct, Kings County 1982]; Matter of Filippazzo v Garden Face Brickface Co., 120 AD2d 663 [2d Dept 1986].) The public policy rationale behind CPLR 4544 was to protect residential tenants and consumers who are at risk when entering into contracts drawn up by others and presented to them on a take-or-leave basis.

1989Co. v Kranz, 96 Misc 2d 396 ; see also, Balram v Etheridge, 113 Misc 2d 251 [Civ Ct, Kings County 1982]; Matter of Filippazzo v Garden Face Brickface Co., 120 AD2d 663 [2d Dept 1986].) The public policy rationale behind CPLR 4544 was to protect residential tenants and consumers who are at risk when entering into contracts drawn up by others and presented to them on a take-or-leave basis.

1989(See, for example, Koslowski v Palmieri, 98 Misc 2d 885 [App Term, 2d Dept 1979] [despite the literal requirement of CPLR 4544 (prior to the 1979 amendment to this provision) that precluded consideration of a lease provision only where the clause was both small and illegible, the Legislature’s obvious intent was that the type be both clear and the proper size]; accord, Sorbonne Apts.

1984Thus, the failure to comply with the literal requirement of the SEQRA regulations does not require a reversal of the Commissioner’s determination (see Webster Assoc. v Town of Webster, 59 NY2d 220 ).

1955The court will not permit mere verbiage to defeat the apparent purpose intended by the testator (Carter, Macy Co. v. Matthews, 220 App. Div. 679, 683 , affd. 247 N. Y. 532 ; Collister v. Fassitt, 163 N. Y. 281, 286 ; Atwater & Co. v. Panama R.

1955The court will not permit mere verbiage to defeat the apparent purpose intended by the testator (Carter, Macy Co. v. Matthews, 220 App. Div. 679, 683 , affd. 247 N. Y. 532 ; Collister v. Fassitt, 163 N. Y. 281, 286 ; Atwater & Co. v. Panama R.

1955The court will not permit mere verbiage to defeat the apparent purpose intended by the testator (Carter, Macy Co. v. Matthews, 220 App. Div. 679, 683 , affd. 247 N. Y. 532 ; Collister v. Fassitt, 163 N. Y. 281, 286 ; Atwater & Co. v. Panama R.

1948In other words, there was substantial evidence adduced, which, if believed by the jury, constituted legal excuse for the technical noncompliance with the literal requirement of the statute, and the verdict returned by the jury, being itself thus supported, in turn supports the judgment based upon it of which plaintiff now complains.” In Amelsburg v. Lunning ( 234 Iowa 852 ) the plaintiff was injured as the result of a collision between two motor vehicles, one being operated by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant.

1930In Landreth v. Wyckoff (supra) the literal rule laid down in the Passinger case was followed.

1879The supreme political power, acting through its officers, is competent to take as security for official good conduct an obligation in writing not squaring with the literal requirement of the authorizing statute : (The United States v. Linn, 15 Peters, 290 ; The Same v. Hodson, 10 Wall., 395 .) The executive officer of a county has been held to be so ; (Morse v. Hodsden, 5 Mass., 318 ); and a judicial officer of a county ; (Thomas v. White, 12 id., 369 ); and the directors of a bank (Bank of Brighton v. Smith, 5 Allen, 415 ).

1879The supreme political power, acting through its officers, is competent to take as security for official good conduct an obligation in writing not squaring with the literal requirement of the authorizing statute : (The United States v. Linn, 15 Peters, 290 ; The Same v. Hodson, 10 Wall., 395 .) The executive officer of a county has been held to be so ; (Morse v. Hodsden, 5 Mass., 318 ); and a judicial officer of a county ; (Thomas v. White, 12 id., 369 ); and the directors of a bank (Bank of Brighton v. Smith, 5 Allen, 415 ).