alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Michael Moss, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[834 NYS2d 371]—

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 7, 2006, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a warehouse worker until he resigned in lieu of discharge after pulling a box cutter on his supervisor. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied his claim for unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he was discharged for misconduct. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. Violent or threatening behavior by an employee has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct *(see Matter of*
      *1058
      *Eisenstadt [Commissioner of Labor],*10 AD3d 764, 765 [2004]; *Matter of Allen [Commissioner of Labor],*5 AD3d 845, 846 [2004]; *Matter of Santana [Commissioner of Labor],*263 AD2d 564 [1999]). Claimant’s assertion that he did not pull the box cutter on his supervisor presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve *(see Matter of Mears [Commissioner of Labor],*308 AD2d 627, 627 [2003]).

Peters, J.P, Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

November 14, 2014

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

Nos. 13-3553 & 14-1371

ROBERT L. WINSTON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

OFFICER O’BRIEN, et al

Defendants.

APPEAL OF: CITY OF CHICAGO

Appeal from the United States 

District Court for the Northern District 

of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 1:10-CV-08218

Elaine E. Bucklo,

Judge.

O R D E R

It is ordered that the Amended Opinion issued on this date is substituted for the 

Opinion issued on November 7, 2014, which is now withdrawn.
#### Robert Lee Lowman, Jr., Appellant, v Mary Dankert, Defendant, and Paul North et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[835 NYS2d 795]-

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Dillon, J.), entered June 26, 2006. The order, insofar *1274as appealed from, granted the motion of defendant William Waszkielewicz for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him and granted in part the motion of defendants Mary Dankert, Paul North and Norm Peters for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages resulting from alleged trespasses on his property by defendants Mary Dankert, the dog control officer for the Town of Collins, and William Waszkielewicz, a state trooper, and from the arrest and prosecution of plaintiff for violating Agriculture and Markets Law § 119. With respect to the order in appeal No. 1, we conclude that Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Waszkielewicz seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint (denominated petition) against him. Waszkielewicz was authorized to enter plaintiffs property to execute the arrest warrant *(see generally Hand v Stray Haven Humane Socy. & S.RC.A., Inc.,*21 AD3d 626, 628 [2005]), and the arrest of plaintiff “pursuant to a warrant valid on its face and issued by a court having jurisdiction of the [violation] and person is privileged” *(Boose v City of Rochester,*71 AD2d 59, 66 [1979]; *see Johnson v Kings County Dist. Attorney’s Off.,*308 AD2d 278, 286 [2003]). The court also properly granted that part of the motion of Dankert and defendants Paul North and Norm Peters seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against North and Peters. The acts of North and Peters were performed in the exercise of their judicial functions as town justices of the Town of Collins, and those defendants are thus immune from liability *(see generally Murray v Brancato,*290 NY 52, 55 [1943]; *Word v City of Mount Vernon,*65 AD2d 622 [1978], *lv denied*47 NY2d 706 [1979]).

In appeal No. 2, plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment granting the motion of Dankert for leave to reargue the motion insofar as it sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint against her and, upon reargument, granting that relief. We affirm that order and judgment. The evidence establishes that Dankert was authorized in her capacity as dog control officer to enter plaintiffs property to serve the appearance ticket *(see Hand,*21 AD3d at 628; *Kucher v Kaminsky & Rich,*7 AD3d 491, 492 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 607 [2004]). The evidence further establishes that “it was objectively reasonable for [Dankert] to believe that [her] conduct was appropriate under the circumstances,” and thus her conduct is subject to a qualified privilege *(Baez v City of Amsterdam,*245 AD2d 705, 706-*1275707 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 810 [1998]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Green and Pine, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

MARTHA KIGHT DUTCHER,

Appellant,

v.

DUTCHER

- PHIPPS CRANE & RIGGING, INC., KENNETH J. DUTCHER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND IN
HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF
DUTCHER

- PHIPPS CRANE & RIGGING, INC., AND IN HIS
CAPACITY AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE
OF PAUL K. DUTCHER LIVING TRUST ONE, AND ROBIN L. ERWIN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND IN HER
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF
DUTCHER

- PHIPPS CRANE & RIGGING, INC.,

Appellees. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 15

- 00202

- CV

Appeal from the

143 rd Judicial District Court

of Ward County, Texas

(TC# 14

- 07

- 23394

- CVW )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellees

recover from Appellant and her sureties if any, see T EX .R.A PP .P. 43.5, on the judgment and all costs

for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
§ 550.161 What else must I submit with my application? With your application, you must describe the proposed use giving: ( a ) Details of the proposed uses and activities including access needs and special rights of use that you may need;
( b ) A description of all facilities for which you are seeking authorization;
( c ) A map or plat describing primary and alternate project locations; and
( d ) A schedule for constructing any new facilities, drilling or completing any wells, anticipated production rates, and productive life of existing production facilities.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. William Jacobs, Appellant, v. Director of Gowanda State Hospital, Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and writ sustained. Memorandum: Sixty-three days after the County Judge of Erie County had granted an order adjudging relator to be mentally ill and certifying him to Gowanda State Hospital (being 60 days after relator had entered the hospital pursuant to such order) the certificate of the medical officer of the hospital was filed in Erie County Clerk’s office finding relator to be in need of continued care and treatment. Such certificate was not filed within the 60-day period specified in subdivision 7 of section 74 of the Mental Hygiene Law, and it therefore failed to cause the County Court order of certification to become a final order. That order expired on the 60th day after its date and thereafter relator was illegally detained. (Cf. *People ex rel. Granskofski*v. *Whitehead,*10 A D 2d 801, affd. 8 N Y 2d 962.) (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term dismissing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding relator to custody of Director of Gowanda State Hospital.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, MeClusky, Henry and Noonan, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 75
Editorial Note: The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

§ 75.1101-5 Installation of foam generator systems. ( a ) Foam generator systems shall be located so as to discharge foam to the belt drive, belt takeup, electrical controls, gear reducing unit and the conveyor belt.
( b ) Foam generator systems shall be equipped with a fire sensor which actuates the system, and each system shall be capable of producing and delivering the following amounts of foam within 5 minutes: ( 1 ) At fire-resistant belt installations, an amount which will fully envelop the belt drive, belt takeup, electrical controls, gear reducing unit, and the conveyor belt over a distance of 50 feet; and,
( 2 ) At nonfire-resistant belt installations, an amount which will fully envelop the belt drive, belt takeup electrical controls, gear reducing unit, and the conveyor belt over a distance of 150 feet.
( c ) The foam generator shall be equipped with a warning device designed to stop the belt drive when a fire occurs and all such warning devices shall be capable of giving both an audible and visual signal when actuated by fire.
( d ) Water, power, and chemicals required shall be adequate to maintain water or foam flow for no less than 25 minutes.
( e ) Water systems shall include strainers with a flush-out connection and a manual shut-off valve.
#### § 736.13 [Reserved]
Editorial Note on Part 773
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 54938, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 773 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93323-93325, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 773.9 Review of applicant and operator information. ( a ) We, the regulatory authority, will rely upon the information that you, the applicant, are required to submit under § 778.11 of this subchapter, information from AVS, and any other available information, to review your and your operator's organizational structure and ownership or control relationships.
( b ) We must conduct the review required under paragraph (a) of this section before making a permit eligibility determination under § 773.12 of this part.
[65 FR 79663, Dec. 19, 2000, as amended at 72 FR 68029, Dec. 3, 2007; 75 FR 60275, Sept. 29, 2010]
# C_2023320EN.01000901.xml

| 11.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/9

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.11260 - APAX PARTNERS / FREMMAN PARTNERS / CHACRIM DIRECTORSHIP)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 320/07)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Apax Partners LLP (‘AP’, UK), |
| --- | --- |

—

Apax Partners LLP (‘AP’, UK),

| — | Fremman Partners Limited (‘Fremman’, UK), |
| --- | --- |

—

Fremman Partners Limited (‘Fremman’, UK),

| — | Chacrim Directorship, S.L. (the ‘Target’, Spain) controlled by Fremman. |
| --- | --- |

—

Chacrim Directorship, S.L. (the ‘Target’, Spain) controlled by Fremman.

AP and Fremman will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the Target.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | AP is a limited liability partnership and the parent of a number of entities which provide investment advisory services to private equity funds investing in a range of industry sectors, |
| --- | --- |

—

AP is a limited liability partnership and the parent of a number of entities which provide investment advisory services to private equity funds investing in a range of industry sectors,

| — | Fremman is a private equity firm active in the investment and management of companies in multiple sectors, |
| --- | --- |

—

Fremman is a private equity firm active in the investment and management of companies in multiple sectors,

| — | The Target controls a group of companies active in the distribution of medical supplies and devices mainly in Spain (Palex Group), Italy (Gada Group) and Portugal (LusoPalex). |
| --- | --- |

—

The Target controls a group of companies active in the distribution of medical supplies and devices mainly in Spain (Palex Group), Italy (Gada Group) and Portugal (LusoPalex).

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.11260 - APAX PARTNERS / FREMMAN PARTNERS / CHACRIM DIRECTORSHIP

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  
  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  
  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
EXHIBIT 32.1
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 The Dewey Electronics
Corporation (the "Corporation") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
Decembr 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John H. D. Dewey, Chief Executive
Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS 1350, as
adopted pursuant to SS 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:
(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 results of operations of
the Corporation.

/s/ John H.D. Dewey
John H. D. Dewey, Chief Executive Officer
Date: February 11, 2011

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to The Dewey Electronics Corporation and will be retained
by The Dewey Electronics Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.01

Citizens Financial Corp.

Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

I, Robert J. Schoonover, President and Chief Executive Officer of Citizens Financial Corp., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Citizens Financial Corp;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results in operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer
and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date 3/14/06



/s/ Robert J. SchoonoverRobert J. SchoonoverPresident and Chief Executive Officer
### SUBCHAPTER IV—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION
EXHIBIT 23.1


                 Consent of Independent Auditors



     We consent to the incorporation by reference in (i) the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-67802) dated August 23,
1993 pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan of Pentech
International Inc. ("Pentech") and (ii) the Registration Statement
(Form S-8, No. 333-30595) dated July 2, 1997 pertaining to the 1995
Stock Option Plan of Pentech, of our report dated December 8, 1999
(except for Note 3(c) as to which the date is December 20, 1999)
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule
of Pentech included in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended September 30, 1999.


                                   ERNST & YOUNG LLP



                                   By:s/Ernst & Young LLP

MetroPark, New Jersey
December 28, 1999
#### FRANSIOLI v. BOORMAN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Dismissal—New Action—Costs of Previous Suit.

Where a new suit for the" same cause of action is instituted against the same parties after the dismissal of a former action, a motion to stay the action until the costs in the former are paid will he granted.

¶ 1. See Costs, vol. 13, Cent. Dig. § 1049.

Appeal from City Court of New York.

Action by Augustus C. Fransioli against Thomas FI. Boorman. From an order staying the action until the costs in a previous action wrere paid, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

*129A. C. Fransioli, in pro. per.

A. L. Squiers, for respondent.

GILDERSLEEVE, J.

In December last, the appellant brought an action in the City Court against the respondents to recover the balance due on a judgment obtained by him against them. The action was at issue and on the trial calendar March 5th last, on which day, the appellant being in default, the complaint was dismissed, with $73.20 costs. Instead of moving to open his default, the appellant commenced another action against the same parties defendant for the same cause of action stated in the complaint in the first suit. Thereupon the respondents moved for a stay of the second action until the costs in the first one should be paid. The court granted this motion, and from the order staying the appellant’s proceedings until the costs were paid, this appeal was taken. The obvious and ordinary mode of obtaining relief in the circumstances was for the appellant to move to open the default, and such a motion would probably have been granted, but he chose to bring a new suit for the same cause of action, apparently in the expectation of avoiding the payment of any costs whatever. The decision of the court below was strictly in accordance with established practice. Hill v. Grant, 2 Thomp. & C. 467; Bates v. Dickerson (Sup.) 12 N. Y. Supp. 773; Sprague v. Bartholdi, 68 Hun, 555, 22 N. Y. Supp. 1090; Farrell v. Juvenile Asylum, 2 App. Div. 496, 37 N. Y. Supp. 1118; Spaulding v. American, etc., 58 App. Div. 314, 68 N. Y. Supp. 945.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
Exhibit 10.iii.A.11.1




 




Amendment to Employment Agreement




Between




Broadwing

Inc. and John F. Cassidy




 




The Employment

Agreement between Broadwing Inc. (fka Cincinnati Bell Inc.) and John F. Cassidy

with an Effective Date of December 31, 1998, is hereby amended to reflect a new

title, base salary and bonus target as of September 20, 2002 as follows:




 




Section

3. A. is amended to read in its entirety as follows:




“Employee will

serve as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Cincinnati Bell companies

and as Chief Operating Officer of Employer or in such other equivalent capacity

as may be designated by the Chief Executive Officer of Employer.  Employee will report to the Chief Executive

Officer of Employer or to such other officer as the Chief Executive Officer of

Employer may direct.”




 




Section

3. C. is amended to read in its entirety as follows:




“Employee

shall also perform such other duties, consistent with the provisions of Section

3.A., as are reasonably assigned to Employee by the Chief Executive Officer of

Employer.”




 




Section

4. A. is amended to read in its entirety as follows:




“Employee

shall receive a base salary (the “Base Salary”) of at least $550,000.00 per

year, payable not less frequently than monthly, for each year during the term

of this Agreement, subject to proration for any partial year.  Such Base Salary, and all other amounts

payable under this Agreement, shall be subject to withholding as required by

law.”




 




Section

4. B. is amended to read in its entirety as follows:




“In addition

to the Base Salary, Employee shall be entitled to receive an annual bonus (the

“Bonus”) for each calendar year for which services are performed under this

Agreement.  Any Bonus for a calendar

year shall be payable after the conclusion of the calendar year in accordance

with Employer’s regular bonus payment policies.  Each year, Employee shall be given a Bonus target by Employers

Compensation Committee of not less than $495,000.00, subject to proration for a

partial year.”




 




All capitalized terms used in

this amendment shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Employment

Agreement.  All other terms and

conditions of the Employment agreement not specifically amended herein shall

remain in full force and effect as previously agreed upon by the parties.




 




	

  BROADWING INC.


  	

  EMPLOYEE


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

  /s/ Kevin W.

  Mooney


  	

   


  	

  /s/ John F.

  Cassidy


  	

   


  
	

  By: Kevin W.

  Mooney


  	

  John F.

  Cassidy


  
	

  Its: Chief

  Executive Officer