alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 247.6 Eviction. ( a ) *General.* The landlord shall not evict any tenant except by judicial action pursuant to State or local law and in accordance with the requirements of this subpart.
( b ) *Limitations on allegations of new grounds.* In any judicial action instituted to evict the tenant, the landlord must rely on grounds which were set forth in the termination notice served on the tenant under this subpart. The landlord shall not, however, be precluded from relying on grounds about which he or she had no knowledge at the time the termination notice was sent.
( c ) *State and local law.* A tenant may rely on State or local law governing eviction procedures where such law provides the tenant procedural rights which are in addition to those provided by this subpart, except where such State or local law has been preempted under part 246 of this chapter or by other action of the United States.
[48 FR 22915, May 23, 1983. Redesignated and amended at 49 FR 6713, 6715, Feb. 23, 1984]
REED SMITH LLP 

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case Nos. C08-05481 1 US_ACTIVE-103476368.1

[PROPOSED] ORDER CHANGING TIME AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO STRIKE 

Scott D. Baker (SBN 84923) 

Email: sbaker@reedsmith.com 

John P. Bovich (SBN 150688) 

Email: jbovich@reedsmith.com 

Jonah D. Mitchell (SBN 203511) 

Email: jmitchell@reedsmith.com 

James A. Daire (SBN 239637) 

Email: jdaire@reedsmith.com 

REED SMITH LLP

101 Second Street, Suite 1800 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3659 

Telephone: +1 415 543 8700 

Facsimile: +1 415 391 8269 

Attorneys for 

Sybase, Inc. and Informatica Corporation 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

DATA RETRIEVAL TECHNOLOGY LLC, a 

Delaware Corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SYBASE, INC., a Delaware Corporation, 

INFORMATICA CORPORATION, a Delaware 

Corporation, 

 Defendants. 

SYBASE, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and 

INFORMATICA CORPORATION, a Delaware 

Corporation, 

 Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

DATA RETRIEVAL TECHNOLOGY LLC, a 

Delaware Corporation, 

 Defendant. 

Case No.: C08-05481 VRW 

(Related Case No.: C09-1909 VRW) 

(Related Case No.: C 09-05360 VRW) 

[PROPOSED] ORDER CHANGING TIME 

AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON 

MOTION TO STRIKE 

Hon. Vaughn R. Walker 

Case 3:08-cv-05481-JCS Document 94 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 2
REED SMITH LLP 

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case Nos. C08-05481 - 1 - US_ACTIVE-103476368.1

[PROPOSED] ORDER CHANGING TIME AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO STRIKE 

Having considered the papers submitted by the parties, and good cause appearing, the Court 

hereby enters the following Order Changing Time and sets the following briefing schedule in 

connection with DRT’s Motion to Strike: 

(1) Sybase, Inc. and Informatica Corporation will have until noon on April 6, 2010 to file 

their opposition papers in connection with DRT’s Motion to Strike; 

(2) DRT will have no reply brief in support of its Motion to Strike; and 

(3) DRT’s Motion to Strike will be heard on April 8, 2010 at 10:00 a.m., concurrently with 

the other matters on calendar in this dispute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDICATED AND DECREED. 

DATED: _________________, 2010. 

By 

Hon. Vaughn R. Walker 

United States District Chief Judge 

April 6 

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Judge Vaughn R Walker

Case 3:08-cv-05481-JCS Document 94 Filed 04/06/10 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6510

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SPENCER PETERS, a/k/a Smoke,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:08-cr-00186-REP-RCY-2; 3:12-cv-00128-REPRCY)

Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: August 31, 2015

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Spencer Peters, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Spencer Peters seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Peters has not made the requisite showing. On appeal, we 

confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s 

brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Peters’ informal brief 

does not challenge the basis for the district court’s 

disposition, Peters has forfeited appellate review of the 
3

court’s order. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 13**

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code)**

**Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, chapter 63of title 18, United Sates Code), each of the undersigned officers ofDesarrolladora Homex, S.A.B. de C.V. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, tosuch officer’s knowledge, that:**

**The Annual Report on form 20-F for the year ended December 31,2006 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.**
|                           |   | /s/ Gerardo de Nicolás  Gutiérrez |   |   |
|---------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Dated: July 13, 2007 |   | Gerardo de Nicolás Gutiérrez      |   |   |
|                      |   | Chief Executive Officer                     |   |   |
|                      |   |                                        |   |   |
|                      |   | /s/  Alan  Castellanos Carmona         |   |   |
| Dated: July 13, 2007 |   | Alan Castellanos Carmona                    |   |   |
|                      |   | Chief Financial Officer                     |   |   |

 

**A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request**

----
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40914

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARLOS MANUEL MANZANARES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:09-CR-1003-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Manuel

Manzanares has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Manzanares has not filed a

response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 17, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-40914 Document: 00511205535 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2010
### SUBCHAPTER I—RECLAMATION RURAL WATER SUPPLY
Order entered October 17, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00522-CR

PATRICK D. MARTIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F17-18397-RJ

ORDER

The reporter’s record, originally due July 20, 2018, was filed October 15, 2018. Missing 

from the record is State’s Exhibit 67, a CD of medical records ordered sealed. We ORDER

court reporter Kimberly Xavier to file a supplemental reporter’s record containing a true and 

correct playable copy of State’s Exhibit 67 WITHIN TEN DAYS of the date of this order.

We VACATE our October 9, 2018 order that Kimberly Xavier not sit as a court reporter.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Gracie Lewis, 

Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 3; Kimberly Xavier, official court reporter, 

Criminal District Court No. 3; to the Dallas County Auditor’s Office; and to counsel for all 

parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY LIFE TREND INSURANCE

MARKETING & SALES PRACTICE 

LITIGATION

THIS CASE RELATES TO ALL CASES

Case No. 10-md-02124-SI 

ORDER TERMINATING MDL ACTION

For Case Nos.:

10-cv-0652-SI, McFarland

08-cv-5746-SI, Brady

10-cv-0689-SI, Muldrow

12-cv-5906-SI, Burnett

In February 2010, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL Panel”), pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, issued an order that three actions against defendant Conseco Life Insurance 

Company be transferred to this Court. Dkt. No. 1. In March 2010, this Court consolidated the 

actions, and a nationwide class was certified in October 2010, with a subclass certified in 

December 2010. Dkt. Nos. 21, 111, 138. The parties agreed to a settlement and this Court issued 

final approval of the class action settlement on November 8, 2013. Dkt. No. 526. This Court 

issued a final judgment in the class action case that same day. Dkt. No. 527.

A separate action was filed in the Central District of California. See Burnett v. Conseco 

Life Ins. Co., Case No. 12-1715 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2012). The MDL Panel transferred the case as 

a tag-along to this Court in November 2012. Dkt. No. 413. On April 9, 2015, this Court granted 

defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint without leave to amend and entered judgment against 

plaintiffs. Dkt. Nos. 717, 718. 

At the present time, all actions under case number 10-md-2124 have been closed. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that this MDL action be terminated. In accordance 

with this order, the Clerk of the Court shall terminate the MDL action, including each 

Case 3:08-cv-05746-SI Document 128 Filed 09/08/15 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

underlying case, and close the file in each case. In addition, the Clerk of the Court shall 

transmit a copy of this order to the MDL Panel. See Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 

Rule 10.1(a) (“Where the transferee district court terminates an action by valid order, including 

but not limited to . . . judgment of dismissal . . ., the transferee district court clerk shall transmit a 

copy of that order to the Clerk of the Panel. The terminated action shall not be remanded to the 

transferor court . . . unless the transferee judge or the Panel directs otherwise.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2015

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05746-SI Document 128 Filed 09/08/15 Page 2 of 2
§ 203.415 Delivery of certificate of claim. ( a ) If the mortgage was accepted for insurance pursuant to a commitment issued prior to September 2, 1964, the mortgagee may, by filing a written request with the application for debentures, receive in addition to the debentures and the cash adjustment check, a certificate of claim issued in accordance with section 204(e) of the Act. This certificate shall become payable (if at all) as prescribed in section 204(f) of the Act.
( b ) If the mortgage was accepted for insurance pursuant to a commitment issued on or after September 2, 1964, or under the Direct Endorsement, Lender Insurance, or Coinsurance programs, no certificate of claim will be issued.
[36 FR 24508, Dec. 22, 1971, as amended at 57 FR 58349, Dec. 9, 1992; 62 FR 30227, June 2, 1997]
-1-

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28

GCA Law Partners LLP 

1891 Landings Drive 

Mountain View, CA 94043 

(650)428-3900 

JAMES L. JACOBS, Cal. State Bar No. 158277 

VALERIE M. WAGNER, Cal. State Bar No. 173146 

GCA LAW PARTNERS LLP 

1891 Landings Drive 

Mountain View, CA 94043 

Telephone: (650) 428-3900 

Facsimile: (650) 428-3901 

jjacobs@gcalaw.com

vwagner@gcalaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants 

KEMA, INC. and RLW ANALYTICS, INC., and 

Specially-Appearing Counter-Defendants 

CURT PUCKETT and KEMA USE, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

KEMA, INC., a Virginia Corporation, and 

RLW ANALYTICS, INC., a California 

Corporation, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

WILLIAM KOPERWHATS and 

MILOSLICK SCIENTIFIC, LLC. 

 Defendants. 

No. C09 01587 MMC 

CORRECTED [PROPOSED] ORDER 

GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND 

ADR DEADLINE UNDER ADR LOCAL 

RULE 6-5 

WILLIAM KOPERWHATS, an individual 

and MILOSLICK SCIENTIFIC, a California 

company, 

 Counterclaim Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

KEMA, INC., a Virginia Corporation, 

KEMA, USA, a Pennsylvania Corporation, 

RLW ANALYTICS, INC., a California 

Corporation, Axmor Software-America, Inc., 

a Texas Corporation, and Curt D. Puckett, an 

individual, 

 Counterclaim Defendants. 

Case 3:09-cv-01587-MMC Document 124 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 2
-2-

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28

GCA Law Partners LLP 

1891 Landings Drive 

Mountain View, CA 94043 

(650)428-3900 

The Court, having reviewed the Motion to Extend ADR Deadline Under ADR 

Local Rule 6-5 filed by Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants KEMA, Inc. and RLW 

Analytics, Inc., and good cause appearing therefore, orders that the ADR mediation in this 

matter be conducted on or before April 30, 2010. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _______________ 

 JUDGE OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, 

 NORTHERN DISTRIECT OF CALIFORNIA 

Submitted by: 

JAMES L. JACOBS, Cal. State Bar No. 158277 

VALERIE M. WAGNER, Cal. State Bar No. 173146 

GCA LAW PARTNERS LLP 

1891 Landings Drive 

Mountain View, CA 94043 

Telephone: (650) 428-3900 

Facsimile: (650) 428-3901 

jjacobs@gcalaw.com

vwagner@gcalaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants 

KEMA, INC. and RLW ANALYTICS, INC., and 

Specially-Appearing Counter-Defendants CURT 

PUCKETT and KEMA USA, INC. 

Case 3:09-cv-01587-MMC Document 124 Filed 03/04/10 Page 2 of 2
1

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL ACTION NO. C09-0671 CRB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Horace W. Green (SBN 115699)

C. Mark Humbert (SBN 111093)

GREEN & HUMBERT

220 Montgomery Street, Suite 1418

San Francisco, California 94104

Telephone: (415) 837-5433

Facsimile: (415) 837-0127 

Attorneys for Defendants

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF AMERICA and

THE CHIRON CORPORATION

LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN

DON A. LESSER SBN 112887

KATHERINE O’NEAL SBN 124657

THE LESSER LAW GROUP

1010 B Street, Suite 350

San Rafael, CA 94901-1808

Tel: 415.453.7600 Fax: 415.453.7604

Attorneys for Plaintiff

STEPHEN ARNOLD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN ARNOLD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

AMERICA and THE CHIRON 

CORPORATION LONG TERM 

DISABILITY PLAN,

Defendants.

Case No.: C 09-0671 CRB

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE 

HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case 3:09-cv-00671-CRB Document 74 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 2
2

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL ACTION NO. C09-0671 CRB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

WHEREAS, on September 25, 2009, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment; 

and 

WHEREAS, Defendants’ motion is currently set for hearing on July 2, 2010 at 10:00 

a.m.; and 

WHEREAS, Defendants’ counsel is unavailable on July 2, 2010; and

NOW, therefore, the parties stipulate and agree that the hearing date on Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment shall be continued to July 9, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. 

Dated: June 18, 2010 GREEN & HUMBERT

By: /s/_________________________

Horace W. Green

Attorneys for Defendants

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF AMERICA and

THE CHIRON CORPORATION

LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN

Dated: June 18, 2010 THE LESSER + FINKEL LAW GROUP

By: /s/_______________________________

Katherine O’Neal

Attorneys for Plaintiff

STEPHEN ARNOLD

ORDER

Good cause appearing therefore, it is SO ORDERED.

Dated: June __, 2010 _______________________________

 Hon. Charles R. Breyer

21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:09-cv-00671-CRB Document 74 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 2
### §390ll. Corps of Engineers projects

#### (a) Applicability of Federal reclamation laws

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither the ownership or pricing limitation provisions nor the other provisions of Federal reclamation law, including this subchapter, shall be applicable to lands receiving benefits from Federal water resources projects constructed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, unless—

(1) the project has, by Federal statute, explicitly been designated, made a part of, or integrated with a Federal reclamation project; or

(2) the Secretary, pursuant to his authority under Federal reclamation law, has provided project works for the control or conveyance of an agricultural water supply for the lands involved.

#### (b) Payment of construction, operation, maintenance and administrative costs allocated to conservation or irrigation storage

Notwithstanding any other provision of this section to the contrary, obligations that require water users, pursuant to contracts with the Secretary, to repay the share of construction costs and to pay the share of the operation and maintenance and contract administrative costs of a Corps of Engineers project which are allocated to conservation storage or irrigation storage shall remain in effect.

(Pub. L. 97–293, title II, §212, Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1269.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Federal reclamation law, referred to in subsec. (a), is defined in section 390aa of this title.
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350, **

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

|   | (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Registrant. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated                this 14th                day of January, 2008. | By:                                                           | /s/                Lawrence Lee |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                                                                | Lawrence                Lee Chief                Financial Officer |

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**DENICE WICKER AND LINDY WICKER, H/W,** 

**Petitioners**

**v.**

**KORMAN SERVICES, INC.,**

**Respondent**

**AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERVENER**  **:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 355 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 17th day of November, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of** 

**Appeal is** DENIED

**.**
#### Stanley E. Konieczny, Respondent, v. Pease Oil Company, Appellant.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with $10 motion costs.
#### Balport Construction Co., Inc., Respondent, v A. J. Orlando Contracting Co., Inc., Appellant.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of contract, defendant appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 27, 1977, which, *inter alia,*denied its motion for summary judgment as to the first cause of action asserted in the complaint. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Issues of fact exist which may be resolved only after a trial. Damiani, J. P., Suozzi, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.