alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### FITTICHAUER v. VAN WYCK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

February 28, 1905.)

Brokers—Commissions—Payment—Conditions.

Where broker’s commissions were not to be paid for until and unless title passed, and the purchaser failed to complete his purchase, no right to commissions accrued.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 8, Cent. Dig. Brokers, § 97.]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Twelfth District.

Action by Felix Fittichauer against Frederick Van Wyck. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before SCOTT, GIEGERICH, and McCALL, JJ.

Henry A. Brann (G. Murray Hulbert, of counsel), for appellant. Bushby & Berkeley (James C. Bushby, of counsel), for respond- • ent.

PER CURIAM.

There was positive evidence of a disinterested witness, which the result shows the trial justice believed, that the *242broker’s commissions were not to be - paid until and unless title -passed. The purchaser failed to complete his purchase, and therefore no commissions became due.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
EXHIBIT 10.1



January 25, 2006



Dean J. Yimoyines, M.D.
Chief Executive Officer
OPTICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.
87 Grandview Avenue
Waterbury, CT 06708


                        RE: AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE
                        --------------------------------


Dear Dean:


         Reference is made to the Subordinated Promissory Note (the "Note"),
dated September 1, 2005, in the principal sum of $1,000,000. Under the terms of
the Note, the Maturity Date (as defined therein) is January 25, 2007, except
that it is accelerated to March 31, 2006 in the event that the merger between
our companies is not consummated on or before January 31, 2006. Given the fact
that the merger will not be completed on or before such date, we have agreed to
change the outside completion date to April 30, 2006. Accordingly, let this
letter serve to confirm our agreement to amend Paragraph 1 (a) of the Note to
read in its entirety as follows:

         "The entire principal balance, together with any accrued but unpaid
         interest and charges due on any late payments shall be due and payable
         on January 25, 2007 (the "Maturity Date"). Notwithstanding the
         foregoing or anything herein to the contrary, if the merger provided
         for in the Merger Agreement (the "Merger Agreement"), dated August 22,
         2005, between Refac, OptiCare Merger Sub, Inc. and OptiCare Health
         Systems, Inc. ("OHS"), as amended, is not completed on or before April
         30, 2006, the Maturity Date shall be June 30, 2006."



         If the foregoing correctly reflects your understanding, kindly sign and
return a copy of this letter, whereupon it shall constitute a binding amendment
to the Note.


                                                     Sincerely,
                                                     REFAC

                                                     /s/ Robert L. Tuchman
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     By: Robert L. Tuchman
                                                         Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing is hereby confirmed and agreed as of the date above written:

OPTICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.



By: /s/ Dean J. Yimoyines
    ---------------------------------
       Dean J. Yimoyines
       Chief Executive Officer


OPTICARE EYE HEALTH CENTERS, INC.



By: /s/ Dean J. Yimoyines
    ----------------------------------
       Dean J. Yimoyines
       Chief Executive Officer


cc:  CapitalSource Finance, LLC
### §§2611 to 2620. Repealed. Pub. L. 93–203, title VII, §714, formerly title VI, §614, Dec. 28, 1973, 87 Stat. 883; renumbered title VII, §714, Pub. L. 93–567, title I, §101, Dec. 31, 1974, 88 Stat. 1845

Section 2611, Pub. L. 87–415, title III, §301, Mar. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 30; Pub. L. 89–15, §10, Apr. 26, 1965, 79 Stat. 79; Pub. L. 89–792, §7, Nov. 7, 1966, 80 Stat. 1437; Pub. L. 90–636, §§8–10, Oct. 24, 1968, 82 Stat. 1354; Pub. L. 91–4, §1, Mar. 19, 1969, 83 Stat. 6, provided for apportionment of benefits and State administration of funds.

Section 2612, Pub. L. 87–415, title III, §302, Mar. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 31; Pub. L. 89–15, §11, Apr. 26, 1965, 79 Stat. 79, required maintenance of a State effort as a prerequisite to approval of Federal financing.

Section 2613, Pub. L. 87–415, title III, §303, Mar. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 31, called for the utilization of available services and facilities of other Federal agencies and instrumentalities and of resources for skill development.

Section 2614, Pub. L. 87–415, title III, §304, Mar. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 31; Pub. L. 88–214, §7, Dec. 19, 1963, 77 Stat. 424; Pub. L. 89–15, §12, Apr. 26, 1965, 79 Stat. 80; Pub. L. 89–792, §6(b), Nov. 7, 1966, 80 Stat. 1437; Pub. L. 90–636, §1(4), Oct. 24, 1968, 82 Stat. 1352, authorized appropriations.

Section 2615, Pub. L. 87–415, title III, §305, Mar. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 32; Pub. L. 88–214, §8, Dec. 19, 1963, 77 Stat. 424; Pub. L. 89–15, §13, Apr. 26, 1965, 79 Stat. 80; 1970 Reorg. Plan No. 2, eff. July 1, 1970, 35 F.R. 7959, 84 Stat. 2085, placed certain limitations on uses of appropriated funds.

Section 2616, Pub. L. 87–415, title III, §306, Mar. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 32; Pub. L. 89–15, §14, Apr. 26, 1965, 79 Stat. 80, set out authority of Secretaries of Labor and of Health, Education, and Welfare to contract, establish procedures, and make payments.

Section 2617, Pub. L. 87–415, title III, §307, Mar. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 32, provided that selection of persons for training shall not be contingent upon their membership or non-membership in a labor organization.

Section 2618, Pub. L. 87–415, title III, §308, Mar. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 32; Pub. L. 90–636, §5(c), Oct. 24, 1968, 82 Stat. 1353, defined "State".

Section 2619, Pub. L. 87–415, title III, §309, as added Pub. L. 90–636, §11, Oct. 24, 1968, 82 Stat. 1354, provided for training and technical assistance.

Section 2620, Pub. L. 87–415, title III, §310, Mar. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 33; Pub. L. 88–214, §10, Dec. 19, 1963, 77 Stat. 424; Pub. L. 89–15, §16, Apr. 26, 1965, 79 Stat. 80; Pub. L. 90–636, §1(5), Oct. 24, 1968, 82 Stat. 1352; Pub. L. 92–277, §1, Apr. 24, 1972, 86 Stat. 124, called for termination of authority to operate training and skill development programs under title II of Pub. L. 87–415 at the close of June 30, 1973.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 93–203, title VII, §714, formerly title VI, §614, Dec. 28, 1973, 87 Stat. 883; renumbered title VII, §714, Pub. L. 93–567, title I, §101, Dec. 31, 1974, 88 Stat. 1845, provided that the repeal is effective with respect to fiscal years after June 30, 1974.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Albert Marr, Appellant, against Robert E. Murphy, as Warden of Auburn Prison, Respondent.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, without costs.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75333-75334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27502]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the National Institutes of Health Peer Review Advisory Committee.
    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to 
space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in 
advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: National Institutes of Health Peer Review 
Advisory Committee.
    Date: January 24-25, 2005.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    Agenda: Provide technical and scientific advice to the Director, 
National Institutes of

[[Page 75334]]

Health (NIH), the Deputy Director for Extramural Research, NIH and 
the Director, Center for Scientific Review (CSR), on matters 
relating broadly to review procedures and policies for the 
evaluation of scientific and technical merit of applications for 
grants and awards.
    Place: Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: Karl Malik, PhD, Executive Secretary, Center for 
Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge 
Drive, Room 3110, MSC 7776, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-6806, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#563b373a3f3d3d1635252478383f3e78313920"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fa979b96939191ba998988d4949392d49d958c">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 09, 2004.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-27502 Filed 12-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Gramatan National Bank and Trust Company of Bronxville, Appellant, v. Clarence Manley, Respondent.

Order of Onondaga County Court affirming judgment of Syracuse Municipal Court and judgment of Syracuse Municipal Court unanimously reversed on the law and facts and action remitted to the Syracuse Municipal Court for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum, with costs in all courts to the plaintiff. Memorandum: In June, 1956 defendant applied to plaintiff for a loan of $1,500. His written credit statement submitted with the application required the listing with details of “ all debts to banks, finance companies (and) stores.” Defendant set forth only a mortgage indebtedness to a bank. The undisputed evidence at the trial established that at the time of making the application defendant was indebted to three other banks and two finance companies in the total amount of more than $2,700. Fairly construed the complaint alleges and plaintiff proved a cause of action in fraud for the making of false material representations in the application upon which plaintiff made the loan. The proof is equally clear that the loan would not have been made if the true facts had been known. The fact, as found by the trial court, that plaintiff knew the true facts when it accepted the instrument of September 19, 1957 has no pertinency. That document stated that it was only evidence of a revision of the terms of payment and all the terms and conditions of the June 1956 note were to remain in full force and effect. This being a nonjury trial plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the balance due on the note with collection fees and interest all to be determined by Municipal Court to which the action is remitted. (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 584, 624.) (Appeal from judgment of Syracuse Municipal Court, in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint in an action by an assignee of a note executed by defendant to recover damages for alleged fraud and misrepresentation on the part of defendant in the making of a credit statement; also appeal from order of Onondaga County Court affirming the Municipal Court judgment.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
# :~ .B~R~l ~IM ~ /

A V I A T 1 O N

June 5, 2015 SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY T0: Federal Docket Management System, www.regulations.gov U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations West Building, Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 Subject: Second status request regarding petition for exemption under docket FAA-2014-0714 for Brim Equipment Leasing, Inc. dba. Brim Aviation Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter is in regard to the petition for exemption submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration on September 10, 2014 under docket number FAA-2014-0714. We respectfully request, at your earliest convenience, the status of this matter. Kind regards. 

# r

JI.Brim President

f o ~ 

### N 

# N PO Box 3009, Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 541-482-1008 • Fax: 866-929-5133 www.brimaviation.com
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 70281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26618]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--ANSI Accredited Standards Committee ``C50''

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 17, 2004, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), ANSI Accredited Standards 
Committee ``C50'' (``C50 Committee''), by its Secretariat, National 
Electrical Manufacturers Association (``NEMA''), has filed written 
notification simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of 
business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature 
and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications 
were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting 
the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: ANSI 
Accredited Standards Committee ``C50'', Rosslyn, VA. The nature and 
scope of the C50 Committee's standards development activities are: 
Standards related to rotating electrical equipment. C50 Committee 
maintains two standards relating to motors and generators. The 
standards developed by C50 Committee are published by NEMA.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-26618 Filed 12-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 9, 2014

NO. 03-12-00333-CR

Rogelio Alaniz, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND ROSE

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction.

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Editorial Note on Part 142
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 142 appear at 68 FR 51359, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 142.14 Preemployment inquiries. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, a recipient may not conduct a preemployment medical examination or may not make preemployment inquiry of an applicant as to whether the applicant is a handicapped person or as to the nature or severity of a handicap. A recipient may, however, make preemployment inquiry into an applicant's ability to perform job-related functions.
( b ) When a recipient is taking remedial action to correct the effects of past discrimination pursuant to § 142.6(a), when a recipient is taking voluntary action to overcome the effect of conditions that resulted in limited participation in its federally assisted program or activity pursuant to § 142.6(b), or when a recipient is taking affirmative action pursuant to section 503 of the Act, the recipient may invite applicants for employment to indicate whether and to what extent they are handicapped: *Provided,* That: ( 1 ) The recipient states clearly on any written questionnaire used for this purpose or makes clear orally, if no written questionnaire is used, that the information requested is intended for use solely in connection with its remedial action obligations or its voluntary or affirmative action efforts; and
( 2 ) The recipient states clearly that the information is being requested on a voluntary basis, that it will be kept confidential as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, that refusal to provide it will not subject the applicant or employee to any adverse treatment, and that is will be used only in accordance with this part.
( c ) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a recipient from conditioning an offer of employment on the results of a medical examination conducted prior to the employee's entrance on duty. *Provided,* That: ( 1 ) All entering employees are subjected to such an examination regardless of handicap, and
( 2 ) the results of such an examination are used only in accordance with the requirement of this part.
( d ) Information obtained in accordance with this section as to the medical condition or history of the applicant shall be collected and maintained on separate forms that shall be accorded confidentiality as medical records except that: ( 1 ) Supervisors and managers may be informed regarding restrictions on the work or duties of handicapped persons and regarding necessary accommodation;
( 2 ) First aid and safety personnel may be informed, where appropriate, if the condition might require emergency treatment; and
( 3 ) Government officials investigating compliance with the Act shall be provided relevant information upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6138

FREDDY L. WAMBACH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HARRY ALLSBROOK; MR. SPENCE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District

Judge. (CA-96-361-5-BO)

Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 20, 1997

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Freddy L. Wambach, Appellant Pro Se. Neil Clark Dalton, NORTH

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* For the purposes of this appeal, we assume that the date

Appellant wrote on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it

would have been submitted to prison authorities. See Houston v.

Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal

are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and

jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within

which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions

to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time

to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on December 9, 1996.

Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on January 17, 1997, which

is beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Appellant's failure to note

a timely appeal* or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves

this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
3
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 70705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26801]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[ES-960-1420-BJ-TRST] ES-052518, Group No. 155, Minnesota


Eastern States: Filing of Plat of Survey

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Filing of Plat of Survey; Minnesota.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of 
survey of the lands described below in the BLM-Eastern States, 
Springfield, Virginia, 30 calender days from the date of publication in 
the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston 
Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. Attn: Cadastral Survey.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This survey was requested by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs.
    The lands we surveyed are:
    Fifth Principal Meridian, Minnesota
    T. 144 N., R. 39 W.
    The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of a portion 
of the south and west boundaries and a portion of the subdivisional 
lines; and the survey of the subdivision of sections 2, 4, 11, 13-15, 
18-28, and 32-36, Township144 North, Range 39 West, of the Fifth 
Principal Meridian, Minnesota, and was accepted November 17, 2004. We 
will place a copy of the plat we described in the open files. It will 
be available to the public as a matter of information.
    If BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on the 
plat, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing 
pending our consideration of the protest.
    We will not officially file the plat until the day after we have 
accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, 
including decisions on appeals.

    Dated: November 17, 2004.
Stephen D. Douglas,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor.
[FR Doc. 04-26801 Filed 12-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Elizabeth Szabo, Deceased. Wolfgang S. Szabo, Appellant; Honey Wiesel, as Executrix of Elizabeth Szabo, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

Order, entered on April 5, 1960, upon an application made under the provisions of section 206-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.