Draw Rider Plus Extra Quality Download

If you read to this place and you are interested in the game Draw Rider:

When updating the old version, your old progress will be lost. All levels drawn in the editor and experience will be preserved. We welcome your feedback and suggestions in the comments. For all bugs and glitches, write to us at gamingstudio17@gmail.com

Welcome to Draw Rider 2 - fun arcade racing games in which both time trips and special missions are waiting for you.

Features:

- 32 unique and challenging levels (in history and challenge mode)

- An infinite number of user levels in online mode

- Create your own levels using the built-in editor

- Deadly obstacles: spikes, saws, balls, pits and more

- Happy bike physics, when it hits the wheels fall off

- Unique walking character physics

- Advanced blood simulation (Behaves realistically and gore remains on the walls)

- Complete the challenge and open new skins to customize the character

- The character realistically shatters into pieces with a lot of guts and gore blood

- Several game characters (Max and Emily)

- 3D race with vector graphics.

- Fun professional character dubbing from Domenick DeFrank

Story Mode:

Discover the incredible story of Max and Emily, which begins with a ordinary bike ride.

Challenge Mode:

The goal is simple - to survive and get to the finish line. This is not so easy to do: deadly traps and obstacles await you everywhere.

Level Editor:

Be creative! Built-in level editor is the main feature of Draw Rider 2. Feel yourself an architect and draw a unique track.

Online:

Play on the crazy tracks of other players. Compete, rate and set records!

Draw Rider Plus Download

Download Zip 🔥 https://tlniurl.com/2y3Kxp 🔥

* Tony Hawk Skateboard -- Nobody's hotter than Tony Hawk, except maybe that Potter kid. Tyco's radio-controlled microprocessor-system skateboarder is the most innovative R/C toy yet. Kids control the skateboard's speed and direction plus the rider's upper-body movements to perform rad stunts. When he falls, Tony can push himself back into action (6 and up; $50-$60).

* What's Her Face -- No bimbo, but she does have a blank look on her face. Mattel's new 10-inch doll lets children get creative not only with fashion and hairstyle, but facial features they draw in. Artistically challenged kids can mix and match facial stamps for smiles to frowns, etc. (5 and up; $15).

* The Incredible Shrinky Dinks Maker -- New version of the 1973 hit lets kids put their own drawings on special plastic and then shrink them in the Shrinky Dink oven into plastic keepsakes and charms. A crafty and creative alternative by Spin Master Toys with various $5.99-$8.99 refill kits -- for boys, for girls, for dinosaurs, etc. (8 and up; $29.99).

* Lord of the Rings Action Figures -- The heavily hyped movie (opens Dec. 19) figures to move Toy Biz's detailed, high-quality six-inch action figures to the top of some shopping lists. The fully posable figures are laser-sculpted from the movie images and equipped with swinging swords, lighted staffs, etc. Gandalf, Strider and Frodo, among others, are the first wave of Ring Trilogy toys (6 and up; $6.99 to $19.99).

* Matchbox Rescue Net Map & Go Fire Truck -- The truck that goes where kids send it! This very cool and durable red fire truck lets kids draw out a travel pattern on its screen that the truck follows (3 and up; $39.99).

The role of the motion court is merely one of issue finding, not issue determination. (Rose v Da Ecib USA, 259 AD2d 258 [1st Dept 1999]; Pirrelli v Long Is. R.R., 226 AD2d 166 [1st Dept 1996].) The court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the opposing party and draw all reasonable inferences in the opposing party's favor. (Assaf v Ropog Cab Corp., 153 AD2d 520 [1st Dept 1989].) However, mere conclusory allegations regarding the existence of questions of fact are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. (Dillenberger v 74 Fifth Ave. Owners Corp., 155 AD2d 327 [1st Dept 1989].)

Petitioner contends that it is entitled to charge the rent demanded in the petition, that the renewal lease commencing on January 1, 2002 charged a preferential rent of $701.91 and recited the legal regulated rent which could have been charged for the subject rent-stabilized apartment under the January 1, 2002 lease of $1,102.54. Petitioner further asserts that the January 1, 2002 lease contained a preferential lease rider. Petitioner alleges that when the January 1, 2002 lease expired petitioner exercised its option to charge the legal regulated rent and offered respondent a renewal lease at the legal regulated rent but respondent failed to execute the renewal lease offer. Petitioner then informed respondent in a letter dated December 17, 2003 that it was exercising its option to charge the higher legal regulated rent of $1,221.28 for a one-year lease or $1,256.34 for a two-year lease. (Exhibit E, petitioner's motion.) Petitioner alleges that it then deemed a lease renewal and began charging the respondent the legal regulated rent but respondent refused to pay the rent increase.

Respondent alleges that he was initially charged a rent of $600 when he first moved in in 1994, that with the exception of the first 1994 lease all the renewal leases prior to January 1, 2002 charged a rent based on the initial $600 rent plus applicable rent stabilization guideline increases and that none of them contain a higher "legal regulated rent" nor do any of the leases contain a preferential rent rider. Respondent contends that petitioner's unilateral inclusion of a rider in the 2002 renewal purporting to alter the prior rent is ineffective, that the landlord cannot change the terms and conditions of his lease, and respondent cannot waive any benefit under the Rent Stabilization Law.

The documents submitted by the parties include a copy of an initial lease commencing February 1, 1994 at a monthly rent of $932.80 (respondent's cross motion, exhibit A) and a "preferential rent rider" to the February 1, 1994 lease which stated that the legal rent is $932.80 and the preferential rate is $600 per month. (Exhibit A to Osman Bessa affidavit sworn to Nov. 11, 2004.) Also submitted was a renewal lease commencing January 30, 1996 at a monthly rent of $618, which did not state that this was a preferential rent, did not recite a higher legal regulated rent, and did not have a preferential rent rider attached (exhibit B to respondent's cross motion); an executed lease renewal form for a two-year term commencing January 1, 1999 which lists "legal rent on the preceding September 30" at $624.24 and which contains a new rent of $655.45 and which does not state that this is a preferential rent or that there is a higher legal regulated rent and does not contain a preferential rent rider (exhibit C, respondent's cross motion); and an executed lease renewal form commencing January 1, 2002 which recites both a legal rent of $1,168.69 for a two-year lease and a "lower rent to be charged" of $701.91, and which contains an attached preferential rent rider. (Exhibit C to petitioner's motion papers.)

Respondent alleges that although he rented the apartment in 1994 at [*4]a rent of $600 per month, the 1994 lease stated that the monthly rent was $932.80, that he questioned the landlord about this and the landlord told him that the lease was just a formality and what counted was the rent that was actually paid. Respondent alleges that when the 1994 lease expired he requested that the new lease contain the actual rent, and the landlord agreed, and the lease commencing January 30, 1996 contained a monthly rent of $618. Respondent alleges that when the 1996 lease expired he signed a renewal lease which similarly did not differentiate between a higher legal rent and preferential rent; however, he cannot locate a copy of this lease. He states that the succeeding January 1, 1999 lease renewal form listed a monthly rent of $655.45 and similarly did not recite a higher legal regulated rent and a preferential rent. Respondent states that none of these leases had preferential rent riders attached to them.

Petitioner points out that the original 1994 lease had a preferential rent rider. (Exhibit A of Nov. 1, 2004 Bessa affidavit). The Bessa affidavit also states: "I am advised that on information and belief, each and every subsequent renewal had this rider." However, petitioner failed to produce preferential rent riders or any documentation that the leases executed from 1996 to 2001 established a higher legal regulated rent.

Under the Rent Stabilization Law and Code the legal regulated rent is the rent charged four years prior to the filing of an overcharge complaint or action or interposition of an answer. (78/79 York Assoc. v Rand, 180 Misc 2d 316 [App Term 1999]; CPLR 213-a; Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] 2520.6 [e], [f] [1].) Thus the legal regulated rent must be based on the documented legal rent on the base date four years before respondent's answer was interposed in September 2004. Here respondent documented the legal rent charged on the base date consisting of the lease in effect for the period January 1, 1999 to January 1, 2001 (respondent's cross motion, exhibit C) which charged a rent of $655.45. It is noted that the lease commencing January 1, 1999 specifically listed the "legal rent for the preceding September 30" as $624.24 and the new rent at $655.45. The lease commencing January 1, 1999 did not state that the rent contained therein was a preferential rent, nor did it reserve a higher legal rent, nor did it contain a preferential rent rider.

Although petitioner alleges that on information and belief all the lease [*6]renewals had preferential rent riders, it does not provide such alleged riders. Moreover, the respondent alleges that none of the renewal leases had preferential rent riders. It is petitioner's burden to provide preferential rent lease riders or other documentation establishing the legal regulated rent on the base date. On motion for summary judgment the moving party has an obligation to produce all the evidence within its ken, as upon a trial. (Five Boro Elec. Contrs. Assn. v City of New York, 37 AD2d 807 [1st Dept 1971], affd 33 NY2d 676 [1973]; Dye v Lincoln First Bank of Rochester, 46 AD2d 172, 176 [4th Dept 1974].) It is the landlord's responsibility to provide rent history documentation to establish that the rent charged is the legal regulated rent. (Matter of 4947 Assoc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 199 AD2d 179 [1st Dept 1993].) 2351a5e196