alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

SIDNEY D. REYNOLDS, DOC # T40873 ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-4632 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed June 20, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
SILBERMAN, LUCAS, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We have issued our report dated September 17, 2003, accompanying the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of Venture CatalystIncorporated on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2003. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report of Venture Catalyst Incorporated in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-19743, effective January 14,1997, 333-19745, effective January 14, 1997, 333-19747, effective January 14, 1997, 333-44179, effective January 13, 1998, 333-82169, effective July 2, 1999, 333-47152, effective October 2, 2000 and 333-55434, effective February 12, 2001).

 

 

/s/    GRANT THORNTON LLP 

 

Irvine, California 

September 17, 2003
1850.104-3 Special procedures for unusually hazardous or nuclear risks. ( a ) *Indemnification requests.* ( 1 ) Contractor indemnification requests must be submitted to the cognizant contracting officer for the contract for which the indemnification clause is requested. The request shall be submitted six
( 6 ) months in advance of the desired effective date of the requested indemnification in order to allow sufficient time for the request to be reviewed, analyzed, and approved by the Agency. Contractors shall submit a single request and shall ensure that duplicate requests are not submitted by associated divisions, subsidiaries, or central offices of the contractor. ( ii ) The contractor's request for indemnification must identify a sufficient factual basis for indemnification by explaining specifically what work activities under the contract create the unusually hazardous or nuclear risk and identifying the timeframes in which the risk would be incurred.
( iii ) The contractor shall also provide evidence, such as a certificate of insurance or other customary proof of insurance, that such insurance is either in force or is available and will be in force during the indemnified period.
( b ) *Action on indemnification requests.* ( 1 ) If recommending approval, the contracting officer shall forward the required information to the NASA Headquarters Office of Procurement, Program Operations Division, along with the following: ( i ) For contracts of five years duration or longer, a determination, with supporting rationale, whether the indemnification approval and insurance coverage and premiums should be reviewed for adequacy and continued validity at points in time within the extended contract period.
( ii ) The specific definition of the unusually hazardous risk to which the contractor is exposed in the performance of the contract(s), including specificity about which activities present such risk and the anticipated timeframes in which the risk will be incurred;
( iv ) A complete discussion of the contractor's financial protection program; and
( vi ) The extent to, and conditions under, which indemnification is being approved for subcontracts.
( 2 ) The NASA Administrator is the approval authority for using the indemnification clause in a contract by a Memorandum of Decision.
( 4 ) ( ii ) If approving subcontractor indemnification, the contracting officer shall document the file with a memorandum for record addressing the items set forth in FAR 50.104-3(b) and include an analysis of the subcontractor's financial protection program. In performing this analysis, the contracting officer shall take into consideration the availability, cost, terms and conditions of insurance in relation to the unusually hazardous risk.
[80 FR 36722, June 26, 2015]
#### In the Matter of Richard D. Emanual, Appellant, v. Robert E. Herman, as State Rent Administrator, Respondent, and John Byron, Intervenor-Respondent.

Motion by appellant for a stay pending appeal of the trial of the intervenor-respondent’s counterclaim in the Municipal Court of the City of New York. Motion granted on condition that the appeal be perfected and that appellant be ready to argue or submit it at the December Term, commencing November 28, 1960. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. Appellant is directed to file and serve the record and his brief on or before November 14, 1960. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Alan Rosskamm, certify that:1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. (the“registrant”);2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles; (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: June 8, 2006/s/ Alan Rosskamm
#### Royle Realty Co., Inc., Respondent, v. John C. Juhring, Appellant.

In an action to foreclose a vendee’s lien, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 13, 1964 on the court’s decision and opinion after a nonjury trial: (a) declaring that plaintiff has a lien on the real property contracted to be sold for the sum of $24,681.50, with interest from July 26, 1960; and (b) directing the foreclosure of said lien. Judgment modified on the law and the facts by reducing the amount of the lien to the sum of $23,500, with interest thereon from July 26, 1960. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs. The findings of fact contained or implicit in the decision and opinion below which may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. In our opinion, the vendee was justified in rejecting title because of the inability of the vendor to-comply with a representation in the contract of sale concerning the presence of a sewer main on the property being sold. However, we are of the opinion that the sum of $1,181.50, paid by the vendee for a survey, was improperly included in the computation of the amount of the vendee’s lien. The contract of sale provided that “All sums paid on account of this contract, and the reasonable expenses of the examination of the title to said premises are hereby made liens thereon”. There was no contract provision requiring the vendee to obtain a survey, nor proof that the survey was an essential part of the examination of title. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the vendee may not be afforded a lien for the amount paid for such survey (cf. *Elterman*v. *Hyman,*192 N. Y. 113; *Bulkley*v. *Rouken*Glen, 222 App. Div. 570, 577, affd. 248 N. Y. 647; *Terzo*v. *Stratford,*104 N. Y. S. 2d 278, 282). Defendant’s other contentions have been examined, and, in our opinion, are without merit. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Alston, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered November 23, 1976, convicting him of *801robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The appellant raises substantially the same issues that were raised by his codefendant upon the latter’s appeal, in which this court unanimously affirmed the judgment of conviction *(People v Hammonds,*61 AD2d 1142). Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Shapiro and O'Connor, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 4.7



 








Exhibit 4.7









 









 








Retail Ventures, Inc.




     THE CORPORATION WILL FURNISH WITHOUT CHARGE TO EACH SHAREHOLDER WHO SO REQUESTS WITHIN
FIVE DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF SUCH REQUEST, A STATEMENT OF THE EXPRESS TERMS OF EACH CLASS AND OF EACH
SERIES OF EACH CLASS OF SHARES WHICH THE CORPORATION IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE. SUCH REQUEST SHOULD BE
IN WRITING AND ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE CORPORATION OR TO THE TRANSFER AGENT NAMED ON THE
FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE.



     The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate,
shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	TEN COM

	 	–
	 	as tenants in common
	 	 	 	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT–
	 	                                       Custodian                                        
	TEN ENT

	 	–
	 	as tenants by the entireties
	 	 	 	 	 	               (Cust)                                             (Minor)
	JT TEN

	 	–
	 	as joint tenants with right of
	 	 	 	 	 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors
	 

	 	 	 	survivorship and not as tenants
	 	 	 	 	 	Act                                                            
	 

	 	 	 	in common
	 	 	 	 	 	                         (State)






Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.




For Value Received,                                                              HEREBY SELL, ASSIGN AND TRANSFER UNTO




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	PLEASE PRINT OR INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR	 	 	 
	 	OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE	 	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 
	 	 	 
	 


	 	 





 



PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS



 



 




	 	 	 
	 


	 	SHARES
	REPRESENTED BY THE WITHIN CERTIFICATE, AND DO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY CONSTITUTE AND APPOINT






	 	 	 
	 


	 	ATTORNEY,
	TO TRANSFER THE SAID SHARES ON THE BOOKS OF THE WITHIN-NAMED CORPORATION WITH FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION IN THE PREMISES.






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Dated:

	 	 	 	Signature(s):	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	NOTICE: THE SlGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE
NAME(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE
CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT
ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY
CHANGE WHATEVER.
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Signature(s) Guaranteed:	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION SUCH AS A SECURITIES
BROKER/DEALER, COMMERCIAL BANK, TRUST COMPANY, SAVINGS ASSOCIATION OR A CREDIT UNION PARTICIPATING IN A MEDALLION PROGRAM.
A05A1423.

#### In the Interest of K. B. F., a child.

(617 SE2d 153)

Miller, Judge.

K. B. F. appeals from a juvenile court’s finding of delinquency arising from his involvement in an aggravated assault on the ground that the evidence was insufficient. We find no error and affirm.

In considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an adjudication of delinquency, we view the evidence in favor of the juvenile court’s finding, determining only if a reasonable *187finder of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile committed the acts charged. *In the Interest of M. C. A.,*263 Ga. App. 770 (589 SE2d 331) (2003); see *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

Decided July 6, 2005.

*Donald B. Lowe III,*for appellant.

*Spencer Lawton, Jr., District Attorney, Kimberly Rowden, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

So viewed, the record shows that K. B. F. drove the other assailant to the victim’s residence and addressed the victim just before the assault. The other assailant then held a gun to her head and demanded money. When she said that she did not have any, the assailant returned to the car, and K. B. F, who had remained behind the wheel, led police on a high-speed chase away from the scene. The evidence was thus sufficient to support the finding of delinquency. See OCGA§§ 16-5-21 (a) (1) (defining aggravated assault); 16-2-20 (b) (3) (person who aids or abets commission of a crime may be convicted of it); *In the Interest of A. J.,*273 Ga. App. 51 (614 SE2d 159) (2005) (juvenile who assisted perpetrator by blocking victim’s escape was guilty of aggravated assault).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Blackburn, P. J., and Bernes, J., concur.*
4j~c\ ç~\\.~J~\ Cr’~c~ ~ c\€,~ ~ ~ \~ Sc~ ~r 1\1~ 2o~ ~ ?P ~ ~ ~ ~j~,y~e-~J 1~~ert~i C~(’~

~ ~€e ~ c~ ~ 7r~ s/~-e~s Q\ ~e

-

~ ~ qj ~

~ ~ Q~LI~

~ ~ 

## ~ ~ ~ ~

~ (c~ ~ ~

- ~

~ ~ r~y ~

- ~

~ ~ \~~?

— ~4 vers~& ~ o~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ -

~ \~~(kr) jJ~~ -~~3 ~

~ ~ b

- ~ ~‘) c~~-\~ ~ ~•(- ~ ~ S~r~ ~ - ~ ~

~c p~2~G~ ~) ~

— ~ _~~JJ. ~

~ ~ ftr~ 4 ~0r~M~ 

### A3p~ ~ -y - -‘- ~—J~___ fV~.)( S~—’\\N ~c-’~

- \r~’~~’~’ ~ ~ ~ ~

# Annual Asphalt Pavement

Industry Surveyon Recycled Materials and Warm-MixAsphalt Usage:

2009—2013 Appendix B: State-by-State Use of Recycled Materials and Warm-MixAsphalt

in Asphalt Pavement Mixtures

## California Reported Values Total Estimated Value 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 

# I 2013 

### !~“~ ofHMAIWMA Produced Tons_(Millions) Tons_(Millions)

— Total 8.4 7.7 9.4 4.1 11.1 20.0 13.8 23.0 225 24.3 DOT 2.4 2.6 2.9 1.0 2.9 5.7 4.6 7.2 5. 6.3 OtherAgency 3.7 3.1 2.9 1.4 4.1 8.7 5.6 7.0 7.

— 9.0 Commercialand Residential 2.4 2.0 3.6 1.7 4.1 5.6 3.6 8.8 9. 9.0 Companies/Branches Reporting 6 4 4 7 RAP Tons_(Millions) Tons_(Millions) Accepted 1.0 0.9 1.2 0.4 2.1 2.4 1.6 2.9 2.0 4.6 Used in HMA/WMA 0.8 1.4 0.9 0.6 1.2 2.0 2.6 2.2 3.6 2.7 Used inAggregate 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.5 Used in Cold Mix 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

— .0 0.0 Used in Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

— .0 0.0 Landfilled 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 0.0 Average % Used in Mixes Average%forDOT Mixes 11.7% 12.3% 9.6% 12.9% 14.3% Average%forOtherAgencyMixes 11.3% 13.4% 7.0% 14.5% 15.0% Average%forCommercial & Residential 17.4% 14.8% 13.2% 19.1% 17.2% StateAverageAll Mixes Based on % Reported 9.8% 18.8% 9.4% 15.9% 11.1% forDifferentSectors StateAverageAN Mixes Based or~ RAPTons 13.1% 13.4% 10.1% 16.0% 15.6% %Companies/BranchesReporting Using RAP 100% 100% 75% 75% 100% RAS Tons(Thousands) Accepted 12.0 12.1 25.1 0.2 9.9 Used in HMA/WMA 0.0 1.0 2.9 2.0 8.9 0.0 1.8 7.2 11.1 19.5 Used inAggregate 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Used in Cold Mix 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Used in Other 12.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.4 19.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Landfilled 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average % Used in Mixes • Average %forDOTMixes 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Average%forOtherAgencyMixes 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.06% 0.00% Average%forCommercial& Residential 0.00% 0.00% 0.08% 0.07% 0.22% StateAverageAll Mixes Based on RASTons 000°! 0 010/ 003°! 005°! 008°! Used in HMA/WMA

. 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 %Companies/BranchesAcceptingorUsing RAS 17% 33% 75% 25% 43% WMA %Total Production DOT 1% 1% 0% 0% 3% 0.1 0.0 OtherAgency 0% 2% C ‘ 24% 12% 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.9 1.1 Commercialand Residential 1% 14% C 24% 13% 0.1 0.5 0.0 2.3 1.2 Total 0.2 0.6 0.0 4.2 2 5

. %ofMarket_____ ChemicalAdditive% 8% 2% 31% 0% 1% Additive Foaming % 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% PlantFoaming % 88% 96% 69% 100% 99% OrganicAdditive% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% WMA Reporting Using 100% 83% 75% 75% 86% NCR = No Companies Reporting * = Fewerthan 3 companies reporting
#### 1422.103 Overtime.
[J-48-2016]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**DONALD R. SISSON AND MARY SISSON, HIS WIFE,** 

**Appellants**

**v.**

**JOSEPH STANLEY, HIS HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, EXECUTORS,**  **ASSIGNS, AND ANY PERSONS CLAIMING BY, THROUGH, OR FROM** 
**THEM,**

**Appellees :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 72 MAP 2015** 

**Appeal from the Order of the Superior**

**Court at No. 1347 MDA 2013 dated 1/27/15 affirming the judgment entered**  **on 6/28/13 of the Susquehanna County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division,** 

**at No. 2010-620-C.P.**

**ARGUED: May 10, 2016**

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: July 19, 2016

**AND NOW, this 19th day of July, 2016, the above-captio ned appeal is** 

**DISMISSED as having been improvidently granted.**

**Justice Donohue did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.**
The	students	who	complete	a	program	during	AY	2015	will	be	in	the	normal	cohort	(2YP)	

of	students	that	is	used	to	calculate	the	D/E	rates	for	AY	2018.		Transition	rates	would	be	

calculated	for	the	intervening	AYs:	2015,	2016,	and	2017	(shaded).	

Most recently completed Award Year

2014‐2015 2015‐2016 2016‐2017 2017‐2018

7/1/14 to

6/30/15

7/1/15 to

6/30/16

7/1/16 to

6/30/17

7/1/17 to

6/30/18

           

2YP (normal cohort)

2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014

2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

SSA Earnings Year (Jan. 1‐Dec. 31) 2014 2015 2016 2017

For	failing	and	zone	programs,	ED	would	calculate	transition	D/E	rates	for	the	first	3	years	

of	official	rates.
#### 1825.901 Policy.

NASA has statutory authority to exempt certain articles from import duties, including articles that will be launched into space, spare parts for such articles, ground support equipment, and unique equipment used in connection with an international program or launch service agreement. This authority is fully described in 14 CFR part 1217.
NUMBER 13-10-00227-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

ALVARO SANCHEZ, Appellant,

v.

OMAR LUCIO, CAMERON COUNTY SHERIFF, ET AL., Appellees. 

____________________________________________________________

On “Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation”

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Alvaro Sanchez, attempts to appeal an “Order Adopting Magistrate 

Judge’s Report and Recommendation” entered by the United States District Court 

Southern District of Texas Brownsville Division on March 2, 2010. Upon receipt of the 

notice of appeal, the Clerk of this Court notified Sanchez that it did not appear that this 

Court has jurisdiction, so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be 
2

done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3. The Clerk further notified Sanchez that the 

appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected after the expiration of ten days 

from receipt of the Court’s notice. In response, Sanchez has sent numerous handwritten 

documents, including an “Application for Certificate of Appealability Under to Comply with 

28 U.S.C. §2253.”

The Court, having fully reviewed and considered the documents herein, concludes 

that the order appealed from fails to invoke our appellate jurisdiction and is of the opinion 

that the cause should be dismissed. In terms of appellate jurisdiction, each court of 

appeals has appellate jurisdiction of all civil cases within its district of which the district 

courts or county courts have jurisdiction when the amount in controversy or the judgment 

rendered exceeds $250, exclusive of interest and costs. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.

§22.220 (Vernon 2004). In this case, the order appealed from was not from a district or 

county court, rather it was an order issued by the United States Southern District Court.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the 

opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the 

appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a),(c). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

22nd day of July, 2010.
#### Lawrence Dow, Appellant, v Lenox Hill Hospital et al., Respondents.

[831 NYS2d 903]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George D. Salerno, J.), entered January 5, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, inter alia, dismissing plaintiff’s medical malpractice cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*287Defendants, through the affirmations of their medical experts, met their burden as summary judgment movants to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment, and plaintiff did not in response “show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact” by evidentiary proof in admissible form (CPLR 3212 [b]). The motion court properly refused to consider the unsworn letter from plaintiffs expert (see *Grasso v Angerami,*79 NY2d 813 [1991]; *Simms v APA Truck Leasing Corp.,*14 AD3d 322 [2005]). Concur—Williams, J.P., Buckley, Catterson and Malone, JJ.