party to the agreement; and Juch-Tech was given at least fifteen days to comply before the agreement was terminated. See, e.g., MyPlayCity, 2012 WL 1107648, at *11 (“While the notice contained a typographical error, there is no dispute that the Notice of Termination was sent to [the plaintiff-company] through its officers, or that the notice was intended for [the plaintiff-company].”); J.C. Studios, 32 Misc.3d 1211(A), at *9, 2011 WL 2651857 (granting defendant’s motion to dismiss when “[p]laintiff does not dispute that it received actual notice of the termination of the [] Agreement, and plaintiff does not allege any detriment caused to it by any claimed deviation from the terms of the [ ] Agreement”); Ives v. Mars Metal Corp., 23 Misc.2d 1015, 1017, 196 N.Y.S.2d 247 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1960) (<HOLDING>). Further, there exists a triable issue as to
holding that form 4790 is a rule that requires notice and comment prior to adoption and publication in the federal register before it can support a forfeiture action based on an individuals failure to fill out the form holding that the use of the written form is mandatory and that failure to use the written form as mandated is reversible error recognizing that the applicant received notice from the plea form even though such notice was not required holding that when actual notice of termination has in fact been given the form is of little import even when the form violates the contract and it would be hyperteehnical in the extreme to hold otherwise holding that evidence in an inadmissible form may be considered at the summary judgment stage as long as the evidence is submitted in an admissible form at trial