alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, 

EASTERN DIVISION

CHARLES C. PATTERSON, on his behalf 

of himself and others similarly situated 

Plaintiffs 

v. 

LEADING EDGE RECOVERY 

SOLUTIONS, LLC 

Defendant 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

12-cv-1216 

Judge Coleman 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

NOW COMES Defendant, LEADING EDGE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC 

(“Leading Edge”) by and through its undersigned attorneys, and pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) 

moves to dismiss Counts I and II of Plaintiff’s Complaint based upon the absence of Article 

III standing, and in the alternative, pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) moves to dismiss Count I for 

failure to state a claim. In support of these motions, Leading Edge states the following: 

1. This case involves a two count Complaint. Defendant Leading Edge is a debt 

collection agency. Count I asserts individual and class based claims under the Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”). Count II asserts individual claims under 

the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (“FDCPA”). 

2. As to Count I, Plaintiff claims that and that it violated the TCPA by making a 

single an auto-dialed call to Plaintiff’s cell phone without his consent. Plaintiff, however, has 

failed to allege that he suffered any actual damages as a result of Defendant’s conduct. At the 

present time, the Supreme Court is poised to rule on a similar argument where a plaintiff has 

failed to allege any damages as a result of an alleged Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act 

violation. Accordingly, this case should be dismissed for failing to satisfy Article III standing. 

130186309v1 0927670 07791 

Case: 1:12-cv-01216 Document #: 20 Filed: 04/06/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:55
3. Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim should also be dismissed because he has failed to allege 

that he suffered any actual damages. 

4. Alternately, dismissal is proper under FRCP 12(b)(6) because Plaintiff has failed 

to properly set forth a violation of the TCPA. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff’s 

Complaint with prejudice, or alternatively, stay this case. 

By: /s/James C. Vlahakis

David M. Schultz 

James C. Vlahakis 

One of the Attorneys for Defendant 

LEADING EDGE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC 

David M. Schultz 

James C. Vlahakis 

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 

222 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 300 

Chicago, Illinois 60601-1081 

Phone No: (312) 704-3000 

dschutlz@hinshawlaw.com 

jvlahakis@hinshawlaw.com

2 

130186309v1 0927670 07791 

Case: 1:12-cv-01216 Document #: 20 Filed: 04/06/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:56
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 6, 2012, I electronically filed the above document with the Clerk of 

the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing(s) to all counsel 

of record. 

By: s/ James C. Vlahakis

One of the Attorneys for Defendant 

3 

130186309v1 0927670 07791 

Case: 1:12-cv-01216 Document #: 20 Filed: 04/06/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:57
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

89–012 2001

107th Congress, 1st Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 107–7

FINAL SEQUESTRATION REPORT

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

COMMUNICATION

FROM

THE DIRECTOR,

THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

TRANSMITTING

CBO’S FINAL SEQUESTRATION REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000,

PURSUANT TO 2 U.S.C.

JANUARY 3, 2001.—Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on

the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

(1)

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, December 29, 2000.

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to section 254(b) of the Balanced

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended,

the Congressional Budget Office hereby submits its Final Sequestration Report for Fiscal Year 2001 to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Sincerely,

DAN L. CRIPPEN,

Director.

Enclosure.

Identical letters sent to: Honorable Albert Gore, Jr., President of

the Senate and Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget.

(3)

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16
### §725. Repealed. Feb. 10, 1936, ch. 42, 49 Stat. 1106

Section, act Apr. 21, 1934, ch. 157, §25, as added June 20, 1934, ch. 687, 48 Stat. 1184, related to issuance of tax exemption certificates.

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

#### Collection of Unpaid Taxes

Act Mar. 2, 1936, ch. 112, 49 Stat. 1155, amending act Feb. 10, 1936, ch. 42, 49 Stat. 1106, which repealed this section provided that no tax, civil penalty, or interest which accrued under any provision of law repealed by said act Feb. 10, 1936, and which was uncollected on date of enactment of said act Feb. 10, 1936, was to be collected; and all liens for taxes, civil penalties, or interest arising out of taxes under such provisions of law were cancelled and released.
EXHIBIT Z

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-27 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1907
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-27 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1908
### §9053. Dairy margin coverage

#### (a) In general

The Secretary shall continue to administer a dairy margin coverage program for dairy producers under which participating dairy operations are paid a dairy margin coverage payment when actual dairy production margins are less than the threshold levels for a dairy margin coverage payment.

#### (b) Regulations

Subpart A of part 1430 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on December 20, 2018), shall remain in effect for dairy margin coverage beginning with the 2019 calendar year, except to the extent that the regulations are inconsistent with any provision of this Act.

(Pub. L. 113–79, title I, §1403, Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 689; Pub. L. 115–334, title I, §1401(k)(4), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4516.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in subsec. (b), is Pub. L. 113–79, Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 649, known as the Agricultural Act of 2014. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 9001 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–334, §1401(k)(4)(B)–(D), designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, substituted "The Secretary shall continue to administer a dairy margin coverage program" for "Not later than September 1, 2014, the Secretary shall establish and administer a margin protection program", substituted "dairy margin coverage payment" for "margin protection payment" in two places, and added subsec. (b).

Pub. L. 115–334, §1401(k)(4)(A), substituted "Dairy margin coverage" for "Establishment of margin protection program for dairy producers" in section catchline.

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

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–334 effective on Jan. 1, 2019, see section 1401(m) of Pub. L. 115–334, set out as a note under section 9051 of this title.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leslie Ulysses May and Leonard Benford, Appellants.

Motion granted and appeals dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6675

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EDWARD R. FOX, JR., a/k/a Skip Fox,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-94-44, CA-96-111-4)

Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 22, 1997

Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward R. Fox, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Fox, Nos. CR-94-44; CA-96-111-4 (E.D. Va.

Apr. 23, 1997). 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
#### In the Matter of Florence Salkind, Deceased. Daniel Eisenberg, Respondent; Robert C. Salkind, Appellant; Herbert Carr et al., Respondents.

Motion by appellant to dispense with printing of appeal record, granted; the appeal will be heard on the original papers and on printed briefs, which should contain a copy of the opinion, if any, rendered by the court below. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
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

The undersigned, Donald C. Wood, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Federal Realty Investment Trust (the Company), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the Report). The undersigned hereby certifies 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |                                                                             
|---------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|October 29, 2008 |  | /s/ DONALD C. WOOD                                                          
|                 |  | Donald C. Wood,                                                             
|                 |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Trustee (Principal Executive Officer)
Second Department,

May, 1964

(May 4, 1964)

#### The People *of*the State *of*New York, Respondent, v. Frank Lo Cicero, Appellant.

In a *corara nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 12, 1963, which denied without a hearing his application to vacate a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered February 15, 1961 after a non jury trial, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the second degree, and imposing sentence. Said judgment was previously affirmed by this court (16 A D 2d 704). Order affirmed. In our opinion, the purely conelusory allegations in defendant’s petition that a police officer committed perjury with the knowledge of the prosecuting attorney, who suppressed evidence favorable to the defense, did not present any factual issues requiring a hearing (cf. *People*v. *Fanning,*300 N. Y. 593; *People*v. *White,*309 N. Y. 636; *People*v. *Altruda,*5 N Y 2d 970; *People*v. *Stevenson,*14 A D 2d 779). We are also of the opinion that, even if defendant’s allegations be accepted, they fail to disclose perjury by the police officer or the suppression of evidence by the prosecutor. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
14.301 Responsiveness of bids. ( a ) To be considered for award, a bid must comply in all material respects with the invitation for bids. Such compliance enables bidders to stand on an equal footing and maintain the integrity of the sealed bidding system.
( b ) Facsimile bids shall not be considered unless permitted by the solicitation (see 14.202-7).
( c ) Bids should be filled out, executed, and submitted in accordance with the instructions in the invitation. If a bidder uses its own bid form or a letter to submit a bid, the bid may be considered only if ( 1 ) the bidder accepts all the terms and conditions of the invitation and
( 2 ) award on the bid would result in a binding contract with terms and conditions that do not vary from the terms and conditions of the invitation.
( d ) Bids submitted by electronic commerce shall be considered only if the electronic commerce method was specifically stipulated or permitted by the solicitation.
[48 FR 42171, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 1738, Jan. 11, 1985; 50 FR 52429, Dec. 23, 1985; 54 FR 48983, Nov. 28, 1989; 60 FR 34738, July 3, 1995; 81 FR 83098, Nov. 18, 2016]
###### Editorial Note on Part 724

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 724 appear at 65 FR 62616, Oct. 19, 2000.

#### § 724.214 Applicant's expenses.

Unless otherwise specified by law or regulation, expenses incurred by the applicant, witnesses, or counsel/representative will not be paid by the Department of Defense. The NDRB is not authorized to issue orders or other process to enable the applicant to appear in person.
### §6516. Peer review of certifying agents

#### (a) Peer review

In determining whether to approve an application for accreditation submitted under section 6514 of this title, the Secretary shall consider a report concerning such applicant that shall be prepared by a peer review panel established under subsection (b).

#### (b) Peer review panel

To assist the Secretary in evaluating applications under section 6514 of this title, the Secretary may establish a panel of not less than three persons who have expertise in organic farming and handling methods, to evaluate the State governing official or private person that is seeking accreditation as a certifying agent under such section. Not less than two members of such panel shall be persons who are not employees of the Department of Agriculture or of the applicable State government.

(Pub. L. 101–624, title XXI, §2117, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3945.)
Exhibit 23.1


         CONSENT OF REGISTERED INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


TO: Swiss Medica, Inc.

As registered independent certified public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Swiss Medica, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2004 of our report dated February 23, 2005 and contained in the
Registration Statement NO. 333-110840 of Swiss Medica, Inc. Form S-8 under the
Securities Act of 1933 insofar as such report relates to the financial
statements of Swiss Medica, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004.


                                    /s/ RUSSELL BEDFORD STEFANOU MIRCHANDANI LLP
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Russell Bedford Stefanou Mirchandani LLP

McLean, Virginia
February 23, 2005
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DAVID D. WILBON, RICO M. )

WILBON, and GEORGE J. SMITH, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) 

) Case No. 12 C 1132

v. )

 )

SARAH MCDERMOTT, NOEL ) Magistrate Judge M. David Weisman

ESQUIVEL, MARK A. KUSHINER, )

JORGE CERDA, and CITY OF )

CHICAGO, )

)

 Defendants. )

FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs, David D. Wilbon, Rico M. Wilbon, and George J. Smith, having filed a petition 

for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and this Court having duly considered 

the petition, the response of defendants Sarah McDermott, Mark A. Kushiner, Noel Esquivel, Jorge 

Cerda, and City of Chicago, and the reply of plaintiffs, and having issued a Memorandum Opinion 

and Order thereon on February 1, 2019 (Doc. 576).

Now, for the reasons set forth in said Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court orders 

that a Final Order and Judgment be entered in favor of plaintiffs, David D. Wilbon, Rico M. 

Wilbon, and George J. Smith, and against defendants, Sarah McDermott, Mark A. Kushiner, Noel 

Esquivel, Jorge Cerda, and City of Chicago, in the total amount of $564,349.37 (comprised of 

$547,046.63 in fees, $17,138.54 in interest, and $164.20 in additional costs), with payment to be 

made as follows:

Case: 1:12-cv-01132 Document #: 580 Filed: 02/28/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:8696
2

Payable to the Law Offices of Irene K. Dymkar: $493,133.12

Computed as follows:

Irene K. Dymkar $400,638.80

Shamoyita M. DasGupta $ 32,930.25

Daniel Regenscheit (attorney) $ 21,769.50 

Daniel Regenscheit (paralegal) $ 1,490.63

Amy Kaliski $ 16,734.38

Abigail Means $ 4,593.75

Interest $ 14,975.81

Payable to Hamilton Law Office, LLC: $71,216.31

Computed as follows:

Torreya L. Hamilton $ 68,364.38

Paralegals $ 525.00

Interest $ 2,162.73

Costs $ 164.20

SO ORDERED. ENTERED: February 28, 2019 

M. David Weisman

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 1:12-cv-01132 Document #: 580 Filed: 02/28/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:8697
David A. Kekich
                                  1533 Via Leon
                         Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
                                  310-265-8644






June 19, 2000



Board of Directors
Central Capital Venture Corp.
2660 Townsgate Road, Suite 725
Westlake Village, CA 91361

Gentlemen,

         Please  accept my  resignation  as an officer  and  director of Central
Capital Venture Corp. as of this date, June 19, 2000.

         It has been a pleasure serving you.


With best regards,


/S/David A. Kekich

David A. Kekich















                                                                             19
                                       43
#### 1503.670 Disclosure provision.

The Contracting Officer shall insert the provision at 1552.203-70, *Current/Former Agency Employee Involvement Certification,* in all solicitations for sole-source acquisitions.
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 1 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 2 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 3 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 4 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 5 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 6 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 7 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 8 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 9 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 10 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 11 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 12 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 13 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 14 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 15 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 16 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 17 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 18 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 19 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 20 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 21 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 22 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 23 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 24 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 25 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 26 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 27 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 28 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 29 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 30 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 31 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 32 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 33 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 34 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 35 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 36 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 37 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 38 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 39 of 40 PageID #:361
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 40 of 40 PageID #:361
### §§4701 to 4710. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–624, title XVI, §1620(a), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3734

Section 4701, Pub. L. 99–198, title XIV, §1461, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1562, provided definitions for chapter.

Section 4702, Pub. L. 99–198, title XIV, §1462, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1563, set forth Congressional findings.

Section 4703, Pub. L. 99–198, title XIV, §1463, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1563, set forth purposes of chapter.

Section 4704, Pub. L. 99–198, title XIV, §1464, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1564, related to information study.

Section 4705, Pub. L. 99–198, title XIV, §1465, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1564, authorized research projects to promote purposes of chapter.

Section 4706, Pub. L. 99–198, title XIV, §1466, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1565, related to coordination of projects.

Section 4707, Pub. L. 99–198, title XIV, §1467, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1565, required reports to Congress.

Section 4708, Pub. L. 99–198, title XIV, §1468, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1565, authorized agreements with other expert entities.

Section 4709, Pub. L. 99–198, title XIV, §1469, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1565, related to dissemination of data.

Section 4710, Pub. L. 99–198, title XIV, §1470, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1566, authorized appropriations to carry out chapter.

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 99–198, title XIV, subtitle C (§§1461–1471), §1471, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1566, which provided that this chapter was effective Oct. 1, 1985, was repealed by Pub. L. 101–624, title XVI, §1620(a), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3734.
#### 1316.206 Fixed-ceiling-price contract with retroactive price redetermination.
#### Wells Fargo Funding, Inc., Appellant, v Lend-Mor Mortgage Bankers Corp., Respondent.

[831 NYS2d 905]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), entered February 21, 2006, which, upon a decision of the same court dated January 13, 2006, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant and against it dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court; the Appellate Division may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts *(see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford,*60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; *Sandy v Giusto,*37 AD3d 584 [2007]; *Healy v Williams,*30 AD3d 466 [2006]). The plaintiff failed to establish that the parties entered into a contract upon which the plaintiff’s claims for relief were predicated. Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed.

In light of our determination, we need not address the defendant’s remaining contentions. Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Angiolillo and Garni, JJ., concur.