alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles Higgins, Appellant, *v.*Joseph Ruppert, Respondent.

Second Department,

February 28, 1908.

ETegligence — injury by fall of merchandise — res ipsa loquitur.

One who invites the public to his place of business is under the duty of reasonable care to make the place safe to those who come.

When a customer in a store, while standing at a desk to pay for a purchase, is injured by the fall of the defendant’s merchandise, consisting of a bundle of steel rods ten feet long which had been standing on end against a door jamb, the maxim that “ the thing speaks for itself ” applies, and it is error to nonsuit for failure to make out a case.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Charles Higgins, from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York in favor of the defendant, granting a nonsuit at the close .of the plaintiff’s casé.

*Foley & Martin,*for the apjiellant.

*Lewis G. Grover,*for the respondent.

Gaynor, J.:

The plaintiff was at the desk in the defendant’s store paying for some .goods he was purchasing when a bundle of steel rods about ten feet long which was standing on end in the store against the edge or .jamb of the door, and was of the merchandise there, fell *531over on his foot. There ivas evidence that the defendant was at the same time carrying out of the store to his wagon heavy iron sheets and that the jar from one of them on the sidewalk caused the bundle of rods to fall over. Be this as it may, the ilon-suit at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence was error. The mere fall of the bundle-sufficed to make out a case for the plaintiff for the jury. The maxim that the thing speaks for itself applied. It is a fair inference that the bundle would not have fallen if carefully placed. One who invites the public to his place of business is under the duty of reasonable care to make his place safe to those who come *(Davis*v. *Ferris,*29 App. Div. 623; *Schnizer*v. *Phillips,*108 id. 17; *Dutton*v. *Greenwood Cemetery Co.,*80 id. 352).

The judgment should be reversed.

Jenks, Hooker, Bich and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.
EX-34.4


(logo) Deloitte

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Certified Public Accountants
333 Southeast Second Avenue
Suite 3600
Miami, FL 33131
USA

Tel: +1 305 372 3100
Fax: +1 305 372 3160
www.deloltte.com

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


LNR Partners, LLC
Miami Beach, Florida

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB
Servicing Criteria, that LNR Partners, LLC (the "Company") complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for the commercial mortgage-backed securities
transactions for which the Company served as special servicer, and that were
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Platform") as of and for the year ended December
31, 2013, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), (3)(i)(c), (3)(i)(d), (3)(ii),
(3)(iii), (3)(iv), (4)(v), (4)(ix), (4)(x), (4)(xi), (4)(xii), (4)(xiii),
(4)(xiv) and (4)(xv) which management has determined are not applicable to the
activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample
basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether
the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the
servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were
limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the
period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have
included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included
in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect
noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period
specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or
reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2013 for the commercial mortgage-backed securities Platform is
fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
February 28, 2014


Member of
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited
# C_2006331EN.01003602.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/36

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2006 — Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods v Commission

(Case T-382/04) (1)

1

(Customs union - Rice paper from Vietnam - Remission of import duties - Equitable relief - Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Error of the customs authority - Definition of manifest negligence - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Principle of proportionality)

(2006/C 331/80)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading BV (Landgraaf, Netherlands) (represented by: H. de Bie, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, Agent, assisted by F. Tuytschaever, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision REM 19/2002 of 17 June 2004 finding the remission of import duties in a particular case to be unjustified

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application.

| 2. | Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, as well as those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, as well as those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.

1

---
# C_2006326EN.01001202.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-206/05) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 90/427/EEC - Intra-Community trade in equidae - Requirement for a breeding stallion to be subject to an assessment of its genetic value in Sweden)

(2006/C 326/25)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Erlbacher and K. Simonsson, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: K. Norman, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 28 EC and Article 3 of Council Directive 90/427/EEC of 26 June 1990 on the zootechnical and genealogical conditions governing intra-Community trade in equidae (OJ 1990 L 224, p. 55) — Requirement for breeding stallions to be assessed as to their genetic value in Sweden

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Declares that, by having laid down in its national legislation a requirement that stallions are to be subject to an assessment of their genetic value in Sweden in order to be used for off-farm mating, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of Council Directive 90/427/EEC of 26 June 1990 on the zootechnical and genealogical conditions governing intra-Community trade in equidae; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Declares that, by having laid down in its national legislation a requirement that stallions are to be subject to an assessment of their genetic value in Sweden in order to be used for off-farm mating, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of Council Directive 90/427/EEC of 26 June 1990 on the zootechnical and genealogical conditions governing intra-Community trade in equidae;

| 2) | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 229, 17. 9. 2005.

1

---
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 314

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that all parties involved

in negotiating the compensation for the Nazi slave and forced labor

victims should achieve a settlement that is fair and equitable to all

claimants.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 29, 1999

Mr. KLECZKA submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on International Relations

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

all parties involved in negotiating the compensation for

the Nazi slave and forced labor victims should achieve

a settlement that is fair and equitable to all claimants.

Whereas class action lawsuits seeking wages and damages

arising from slave and forced labor during the Nazi era

have been filed against German companies which have

formed the Foundation Initiative for German Enterprises;

Whereas efforts to negotiate a settlement have begun; and

Whereas representatives of the interested parties will be

meeting in Washington, D.C., on October 6, 1999, to

continue the negotiations: Now, therefore, be it
2

•HRES 314 IH

1 Resolved, That it is the Sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that—

3 (1) members of the Foundation Initiative for

4 German Enterprises should be commended for rec5 ognizing their moral responsibility for the behavior

6 of private companies during the Nazi era; and

7 (2) Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Stuart

8 Eizenstat should mediate the negotiations in a way

9 that will ensure a settlement that is fair and equi10 table to all claimants.

Æ
### §1973. Jurisdiction of courts; duty of United States attorneys; equitable proceedings; petition; expedition of cases; temporary restraining orders; bringing in additional parties; subpenas

The district courts of the United States have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 1972 of this title and it is the duty of the United States attorneys, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. The proceedings may be by way of a petition setting forth the case and praying that the violation be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of have been duly notified of the petition, the court shall proceed, as soon as possible, to the hearing and determination of the case. While the petition is pending, and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as it deems just. Whenever it appears to the court that the ends of justice require that other parties be brought before it, the court may cause them to be summoned whether or not they reside in the district in which the court is held, and subpenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof.

(Pub. L. 91–607, title I, §106(c), Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1767.)
Directory of Trails        - Directory of Trails
        - 1. Tidelands Trail - Fremont
        - 2. LaRiviere Marsh Trail -Fremont
        - 3. Shoreline Trail & 4. No Name Trail - Fremont
        - 5. Newark Slough Trail - Fremont
        - 6. Warm Springs Trail - Fremont
        - 7. Coyote Creek Lagoon Trail - Fremont
        - 8. Alviso Slough Trail - Alviso
        - 9. Mallard Slough Trail - Alviso
        - 10. New Chicago Marsh Trail - Alviso
        - 11. Moffett Bay Trail - Sunnyvale
        - 12. Stevens Creek East Trail - Mountain View
        - 13. Faber-Laumeister Trail - East Palo Alto
        - 14. Ravenswood Trail - Menlo Park
        - 15. SF2 Trail - Menlo Park
        - 16. Bair Island Trail - Redwood City

## 1. Tidelands Trail - Fremont

**Length**1-1.4 mile loop

**Amenities and Uses**Parking, restrooms near visitor center, drinking water, viewing scope, hiking, bicycling, dogs on leash

**Trail Surface**Compacted gravel on level areas. Combination of paved and compacted dirt on steep slopes.**Highlights**Trail traverses uplands, tidal slough, salt pond, and tidal salt marsh. Shorebirds and grebes are plentiful in the pond during the winter,and Forster’s tern and American avocets in the summer. The tidal marsh is home to the endangered Ridgway’s rail.**Connections to Other Trails**Connects to Harrier Spur Trail and Newark Slough Trail. Easy connection to LaRiviere Marsh Trail and Quarry Trail which leads to the Apay Trail in Coyote Hills Regional Park. Marshlands Rd. is part of the Bay Trail system and crosses over the Dumbarton Bridge.**Directions to Trailhead**From HWY 84 on the east side of the Dumbarton Bridge, take Thornton Ave. exit. Drive 0.6miles south on Thornton Ave. Turn right to Marshlands Rd. Turn left into the parking lot at the stop sign. The trail starts near the flagpole.

**Click on map to enlarge**
(logo) pwc

  

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

To the Board of Directors, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.:

 

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association (“Midland” or the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for all transactions serviced on the *Enterprise!*LoanManagement System (the “Platform”), as of December31, 2015 and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(B), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C), 1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Companyhas determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform.Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company'scompliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testingof selected servicingactivities related to the Platform, and determining whetherthe Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management's assertion that Midland complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteriaas of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for the Platformis fairly stated,in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

February 25, 2016

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106 

*T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816) 218 1890 www.pwc.com/us*
§ 13.32 Location of hearing. ( a ) The hearing may be held: ( 1 ) In any judicial district of the United States in which the Defendant resides or transacts business;
( 2 ) In any judicial district of the United States in which the Claim or Statement in issue was Made; or
( 3 ) In such other place as may be agreed upon by the Defendant and the ALJ.
( b ) Each party will have the opportunity to present written and oral argument with respect to the location of the hearing.
( c ) The hearing will be held at the place and at the time ordered by the ALJ.
#### Black et al. *v.*Simmons.

[No. 12,252.

Filed October 16, 1925.]

From Martin Circuit Court; *James E. Cox,*Judge.

Action- between James Black and another and Thomas Simmons. From the judgment rendered, the former appeal. *Affirmed.*By the court in banc.

*McCormick & McCormick,*for appellants.

*Frank E. Gilkison,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 99.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of 1st Net  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'),  I, James
H. Watson, Jr., Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of  operations of the
Company.


/s/ James H. Watson, Jr.
------------------------
James H. Watson, Jr.
Chief Accounting Officer
August 16, 2002
f8k051208ex10_mmgroup.htm


     

    PROMISSORY
NOTE

     

    
      Borrower:     Mega
Media Group, Inc of 1122 Coney Island Avenue, Brooklyn, NY
11230

       

      Lender:        
Eugene Khavinson

    

     

    Principal Amount: 
$75,000.00

     

    
      	
              1.  

            	
              FOR
      VALUE RECEIVED, Mega Media Group, Inc. promises to pay to Eugene Khavinson
      at such address as may be provided in writing to Mega Media Group, Inc.,
      the principal sum of Seventy Five thousand ( $75,000.00 ) USD, with
      interest payable on the unpaid principal at the rate of 9.00 percent per
      annum, calculated yearly not in
advance.

            


    

     

    
      	
              2.  

            	
              This
      Note will be repaid in full 2 months from the execution of this
      Note.

            


    

     

    
      	
              3.  

            	
              At
      any time while not in default under this Note, Mega Media Group, Inc. may
      pay the outstanding balance then owing under this Note to Eugene Khavinson
      without further bonus or
      penalty.

            


    

     

    
      	
              4.  

            	
              This
      Note will be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the
      State of New York and secured by all the account receivable of the
      company.

            


    

     

    
      	
              5.
      

            	
              All
      costs, expenses and expenditures including, and without limitation, the
      complete legal costs incurred by Eugene Khavinson in enforcing this Note
      as a result of any default by Mega Media Group, Inc., will be added to the
      principal then outstanding and will immediately be paid by Mega Media
      Group, Inc.

            


    

     

    
      
        	
                6.  

              	
                This
      Note will enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective
      heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of Mega Media
      Group, Inc. and Danny Vinokur. Mega Media Group, Inc. waives presentment
      for payment, notice of non-payment, protest and notice of
      protest.

              


      

      


       

    

     

    
      IN WITNESS WHEREOF Mega
Media Group, Inc. has duly affixed its Signature by a duly authorized officer
under seal on this 12th day of May 2008.


       

       

      
        	
                SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED
      

                this
      12th
      day of May, 2008 in the presence of

              	 
	
                 

                /s/ Svetlana Aronov

                 

                WITNESS

                 

                SVETLANA ARONOV

                Notary Public, State of New York

                No. 01AR6115798

                Qualified in Queens County

                Commission Expires August 2, 2008

              	
                 /s/  Alex
      Shvarts                                 
      (SEAL)

                Mega
      Media Group