alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Calliope Monllas et al., Appellants, v. City of New York, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and a new trial ordered, with $50 costs to appellants to abide the event. The somewhat confusing trial proof presented factual issues as to the precise place where plaintiff wife fell on a city sidewalk and the nature of the claimed defect. This appellant identified the spot where she fell and an apparently disinterested witness testified that there was a hole thereat 1% feet long, 7 inches wide and 2% to 3 inches in depth. A police officer on the other hand testified that the depth of the same hole was one inch and that the edges thereof were irregular and worn down. In this state of the proof it was error for t-lie court to direct the jury that if they believed the testimony of *the*policeman that the hole was one inch deep a verdict should be returned for defendant. *“*There is no rule that a hole in a public thoroughfare must under all circumstances be of a particular depth .before its existence can give rise to a legal liability.” *(Wilson*v. *Jaybro Realty & Development Co.,*289 N. Y. 410, 412.) Such liability *“*depends on whether or not, having in mind the circumstances of each case, [the *723municipality] has neglected and failed to keep its public thoroughfares * * * in a condition reasonably safe for pedestrians.” *(Loughram*v. *City of New York,*298 N. Y. 320, 322; *Foster*v. *City of New York,*6 N Y 2d 852). Furthermore, the trial court made an unfortunate choice of words in telling the jury that there was a burden on plaintiffs of presenting their proof “on a silver platter.” The use of such a hyperbole may have lead the jury to believe that appellants were required to prove their case by more than a preponderance of the evidence. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Babin and Bastow, JJ.
#### Jane Schaller, Respondent, v Marjorie Rice et al., Defendants, and George Shainswit et al., Appellants.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants Shainswit appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 2, 1979, which, upon default, granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate a settlement and restore the action to the Ready Day Calendar and (2) a further order of the same court, dated May 15, 1979, which, upon appellants’ motion for "reargument”, adhered to the original determination (the motion was, in effect, a motion to vacate the default and the order, in effect, denied that motion). Appeal from the order dated January 2, 1979 dismissed. No appeal lies from an order entered upon default (see CPLR 5511). Order dated May 15, 1979 affirmed. Plaintiff is awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to *963cover both appeals. Special Term properly exercised its discretion in vacating the purported settlement on motion, and not requiring a plenary action, since, as the plaintiff did not give her consent or authorize her lawyer to bind her, the settlement was a "nullity” (see *Yonkers Fur Dressing Co. v Royal Ins. Co.,*247 NY 435, 445). Furthermore, the purported settlement fails to satisfy CPLR 2104, which requires stipulations to be in writing unless "made between counsel in open court” or "reduced to the form of an order and entered.” The action of the Judge’s secretary in notifying plaintiff’s attorney that both defendants had agreed to a particular sum does not constitute an agreement made in open court (see *Dolgin v Dolgin*31 NY2d 1, 5). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Federal, State, and Local GovernmentsPublic Elementary-Secondary Education Finance Data                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|  Main 				   			        Site Map 				   			        Contact Us                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
| Education finance data include revenues, expenditures, debt, and assets (cash and security holdings)		  of elementary and secondary public school systems.  Statistics cover all states, including the		  District of Columbia, and are available on an annual basis.  File formats for downloadable data	          may vary by year.  |
|  Available Data                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |  |
| Years Available Select a Year 20052004200320022001200019991998199719961995199419931992                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
Board of Directors Compensation Plan




 Exhibit 10.36 
  
 2004 Board of Directors Compensation 
  
 Employee directors and directors who are affiliated with Harvest Partners, Inc., an affiliate of the Company’s largest stockholder,
receive no additional compensation for service on the Board of Directors or any committee thereof. Non-employee directors who are not affiliated with Harvest Partners, Inc. (“Outside Directors”) received an annual retainer as well as
compensation for service on a board committee, and if applicable, service as a committee chairman during fiscal 2004 and will continue to receive compensation in 2005 as indicated in the following table. 
  

					
	 Annual Retainer

	 	 Committee Member
 Annual Retainer

	 	 Committee Chairman
 Additional Annual Retainer


	 $30,000
	 	$10,000 - $12,500	 	$2,500 

  
 Outside Directors are also eligible to
receive awards under the stock plans maintained by the Company. During fiscal 2004, Adrian W. Doherty Jr., Ed Hotard, Jerry E. Ryan and Bengt Sohlen were each granted non-qualified stock options to purchase 20,000 shares of common stock at an
exercise price of $9.76 per share (being the fair market value of the common stock on the date of grant) under the Company’s 2004 Incentive Stock Plan. Options vest in one-third increments each year, commencing 12 months from the date of grant.
In addition, all directors are reimbursed by the Company for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by them in connection with their service on the Board of Directors and any committee thereof.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000793934
     <NAME>                                 PS PARTNERS VIII, LTD.
     <MULTIPLIER>                                                1
     <CURRENCY>                                               U.S.
            
     <S>                                <C>
     <PERIOD-TYPE>                                          12-Mos
     <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 Dec-31-1996
     <PERIOD-START>                                     Jan-1-1996
     <PERIOD-END>                                      Dec-31-1996
     <EXCHANGE-RATE>                                             1
     <CASH>                                                209,000
     <SECURITIES>                                                0
     <RECEIVABLES>                                          10,000
     <ALLOWANCES>                                                0
     <INVENTORY>                                                 0
     <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      219,000
     <PP&E>                                             23,903,000
     <DEPRECIATION>                                    (6,309,000)
     <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     17,858,000
     <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 369,000
     <BONDS>                                                     0
     <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
     <PREFERRED>                                                 0
     <COMMON>                                                    0
     <OTHER-SE>                                         17,489,000
     <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       17,858,000
     <SALES>                                                     0
     <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    2,922,000
     <CGS>                                                       0
     <TOTAL-COSTS>                                         946,000
     <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      877,000
     <LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
     <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          0
     <INCOME-PRETAX>                                     1,099,000
     <INCOME-TAX>                                                0
     <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 1,099,000
     <DISCONTINUED>                                              0
     <EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
     <CHANGES>                                                   0
     <NET-INCOME>                                        1,099,000
     <EPS-PRIMARY>                                           17.61
     <EPS-DILUTED>                                           17.61
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 246
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 246 appear at 76 FR 35097, June 16, 2011.

§ 246.15 Program income other than grants. ( a ) *Interest earned on advances.* Interest earned on advances of Program funds at the State and local levels shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of 31 CFR part 205, which implement the requirements of the Cash Management Improvement Act of 1990. However, State agencies will not incur an interest liability to the Federal government on rebate funds for infant formula or other foods, *provided* that all interest earned on such funds is used for program purposes.
( b ) *Other Program income.* The State agency may use current program income (applied in accordance with the addition method described in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D and USDA implementing regulations 2 CFR part 400 and part 415) for costs incurred in the current fiscal year and, with the approval of FNS, for costs incurred in previous years or subsequent fiscal years. Provided that the costs supported by the income further the broad objectives of the Program, they need not be a kind that would be permissible as charges to Federal funds. Money received by the State agency as a result of civil money penalties or fines assessed against a vendor and any interest charged in the collection of these penalties and fines shall be considered as program income.
[50 FR 6121, Feb. 13, 1985, as amended at 63 FR 63974, Nov. 18, 1998; 64 FR 13324, Mar. 18, 1999; 71 FR 56731, Sept. 27, 2006; 81 FR 66494, Sept. 28, 2016]
Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 1-10 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 5
Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 1-10 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 5
Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 1-10 Filed 03/20/20 Page 3 of 5
Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 1-10 Filed 03/20/20 Page 4 of 5
Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 1-10 Filed 03/20/20 Page 5 of 5
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2048 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve the dependent 

care credit by repealing the phasedown of the credit percentage. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2013 

Mr. ISRAEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve 

the dependent care credit by repealing the phasedown 

of the credit percentage. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS. 

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 

5 ‘‘Middle Class Dependent Care Fairness Act of 2013’’. 

6 (b) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

7 (1) During the past few decades we have seen 

8 a greater need for childcare which means a greater 

9 cost for middle-class families. These child care costs 

10 can be a major burden for modern families. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2048 IH

1 (2) In 2011, 44 percent of all American fami2 lies included children under the age of 18. Fifty3 eight and one-half percent of married couples with 

4 children both worked in 2011. The labor force par5 ticipation rate of mothers with children under the 

6 age of 6 was 63.9 percent in 2011 compared with 

7 39 percent in 1975. 

8 (3) Nationwide, on any given day, 4.6 million 

9 children under the age of 5 are in child care outside 

10 the home. 

11 (4) In 40 States, the average annual cost for 

12 center-based care for an infant is higher than a 

13 year’s tuition and related fees at a 4-year public col14 lege. 

15 SEC. 2. DEPENDENT CARE CREDIT IMPROVEMENTS. 

16 (a) REPEAL OF PHASEDOWN OF CREDIT PERCENT17 AGE.—Subsection (a) of section 21 of the Internal Rev18 enue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows: 

19 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.—In the case of an in20 dividual for which there are 1 or more qualifying individ21 uals (as defined in subsection (b)(1)) with respect to such 

22 individual, there shall be allowed as a credit against the 

23 tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an 

24 amount equal to 35 percent of the employment-related exVerDate Mar 15 2010 19:34 May 24, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2048.IH H2048

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2048 IH

1 penses (as defined in subsection (b)(2)) paid by such indi2 vidual during the taxable year.’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

5 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Case 3:95-cr-03049-RV Document 80 Filed 04/29/05 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 23.a.


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


     We  hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in  the
Registration  Statements Nos. 333-76616, 333-65013  and  333-6103
each on  Form  S-8 and to Registration Statement No. 333-45218 on
Form  S-3, and in  the  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-KSB of Igene
Biotechnology,  Inc. for the years ended December  31,  2006  and
2005  of  our   report  dated  December 11, 2007, relating to the
consolidated   financial   statements  of   Igene  Biotechnology,
Inc.

                                /S/ J.H. COHN LLP
                                ___________________________
                                    J.H. COHN LLP

New York, New York
December 11, 2007
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsMicrogravity Environment Description HandbookThe Microgravity Measurement and Analysis Project (MMAP) at the NASA Lewis Research Center (LeRC) manages the Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) and the Orbital Acceleration Research Experiment (OARE) instruments to measure the microgravity environment on orbiting space laboratories. These laboratories include the Spacelab payloads on the shuttle, the SPACEHAB module on the shuttle, the middeck area of the shuttle, and Russia's Mir space station. Experiments are performed in these laboratories to investigate scientific principles in the near-absence of gravity. The microgravity environment desired for most experiments would have zero acceleration across all frequency bands or a true weightless condition. This is not possible due to the nature of spaceflight where there are numerous factors which introduce accelerations to the environment. This handbook presents an overview of the major microgravity environment disturbances of these laboratories. These disturbances are characterized by their source (where known), their magnitude, frequency and duration, and their effect on the microgravity environment. Each disturbance is characterized on a single page for ease in understanding the effect of a particular disturbance. The handbook also contains a brief description of each laboratory.Document ID19970022250Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsDeLombard, Richard*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*McPherson, Kevin*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Hrovat, Kenneth*(Tal-Cut Co. North Olmstead, OH United States)*Moskowitz, Milton*(Tal-Cut Co. North Olmstead, OH United States)*Rogers, Melissa J. B.*(Tal-Cut Co. North Olmstead, OH United States)*Reckart, Timothy*(Tal-Cut Co. North Olmstead, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1997Subject CategorySpacecraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:107486NASA-TM-107486E-10782Accession Number97N22824Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 963-60-0DDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970022250.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Exhibit 23-1
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
The Navigators Group, Inc.

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements No. 33-51608, No. 333-97183, No. 333-106317 and 333-125124 on Form S-8 of The
Navigators Group, Inc. and subsidiaries, our report dated February 22, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of The Navigators Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, comprehensive income and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2006, and all related financial statements schedules, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, which reports appear in the December 31,
2006 annual report on Form 10-K of The Navigators Group, Inc. and subsidiaries.

| | KPMG LLP
| | --------

New
York, New York
February 22, 2007

---
§ 28.32 Misrepresentation; deceptive or fraudulent acts or practices; violations. Any of the following acts or practices may result in debarment from any or all benefits of the Act: ( a ) Any knowing misrepresentation or deceptive or fraudulent act or practice made or committed, or attempted to be committed, by any person in connection with ( 1 ) Any request for classification,
( 2 ) The drawing, handling, identifying, or submitting of any samples for classification,
( 3 ) The making, issuing, or using of any memorandum or certificate of classification issued by a Classing Office or the Quality Assurance Division or
( b ) Any knowing violation of the regulations in this subpart or of the Act.
[28 FR 10634, Oct. 3, 1963, as amended at 52 FR 30882, Aug. 18, 1987; 81 FR 7029, Feb. 10, 2016]
§ 210.1 General purpose and scope. ( a ) *Purpose of the program.* Section 2 of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751), states: “It is declared to be the policy of Congress, as a measure of national security, to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's children and to encourage the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities and other food, by assisting the States, through grants-in-aid and other means, in providing an adequate supply of food and other facilities for the establishment, maintenance, operation, and expansion of nonprofit school lunch programs.” Pursuant to this act, the Department provides States with general and special cash assistance and donations of foods acquired by the Department to be used to assist schools in serving nutritious lunches to children each school day. In furtherance of Program objectives, participating schools shall serve lunches that are nutritionally adequate, as set forth in these regulations, and shall to the extent practicable, ensure that participating children gain a full understanding of the relationship between proper eating and good health.
( b ) *Scope of the regulations.* This part sets forth the requirements for participation in the National School Lunch and Commodity School Programs. It specifies Program responsibilities of State and local officials in the areas of program administration, preparation and service of nutritious lunches, the sale of competitive foods, payment of funds, use of program funds, program monitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
[53 FR 29147, Aug. 2, 1988, as amended at 78 FR 39090, June 28, 2013]
#### Flushing Savings Bank, Appellant, v CCN Realty Corp. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants, and Richard Sanchez, Intervenor-Respondent.

— In an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property, plaintiff mortgagee appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 10, 1979, as denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and required the addition of certain parties defendant. Order modified by deleting therefrom the provision requiring plaintiff to join the New York State Department of Social Services as a defendant in this action and adding thereto a provision denying that part of defendant Wagner’s cross motion that requested such relief. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and within 20 days after service upon the plaintiff of a copy of the order to be entered hereon with notice of entry thereof, plaintiff shall serve upon the parties named in the caption as "JOHN DOE #1” through "JOHN DOE #200”, inclusive, all papers in this action, as necessary parties defendant. It was improper to require plaintiff to join the New York State Department of Social Services in this action since the department has no property interest in the premises so as to make it a necessary defendant in the foreclosure action (see Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, §§ 1311, 1313, 202). However, Special Term properly denied plaintiffs motion to amend the caption of the action to eliminate, as parties, the facility’s residents, who have not yet been served in the action. As tenants whose leaseholds are subordinate to the mortgage of plaintiff, they are necessary parties and must be joined by plaintiff (see Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, § 1311, subd 1; *Averill v Taylor,*8 NY 44; *National Bank of North Amer. v Gloucester Equities,*82 Mise 2d 811; *946contra, *Home Life Ins. Co. v O’Sullivan,*151 App Div 535; *Robinson v Hartley,*134 Mise 703; *Genuth v First Div. Ave. Realty Corp.,*88 Mise 2d 586; *Douglas v Kohart,*196 App Div 84; see, also, *Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v Childs Co.,*230 NY 285). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.