alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### German Del Pozo, Appellant, v Impressive Homes, Inc., Respondent.

[814 NYS2d 734]

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property or, alternatively, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated November 15, 2004, which denied his motion for summary judgment on his cause of action for specific performance.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff purchaser’s contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion for summary judgment on his claim for specific performance. Even where a seller improperly cancels a contract for the sale of real property, the purchaser has the burden of demonstrating that he possessed the financial ability to complete the purchase in order to obtain the remedy of specific performance *(see Madison Equities, LLC v MZ Mgt. Corp.,*17 AD3d 639, 640 [2005]; *Johnson v Phelan,*281 AD2d 394, 395 [2001]; *Petrelli Assoc. v Germano,*268 AD2d 513 [2000]). While the plaintiff did produce some evidence regarding his financial status and the defendant’s possible waiver of compliance with the mortgage contingency clause, that evidence merely raised questions regarding his ability to complete the transaction and was insufficient to demonstrate prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on his claim for specific performance *(see generally Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Crane, J.P., Mastro, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
| USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS   |
|------------------------------------|
| Western Coastal and Marine Geology |

##### U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 2944

# Sand Waves at the Mouth of San Francisco Bay, California

### *By* Patrick L. Barnard, Daniel M. Hanes, Rikk G. Kvitek, and Pat J. Iampietro

### 2006

|  |
|--|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           8,343
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,343
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,372,595
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,283,101
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,565,494)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,372,595
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               161,990
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               198,881
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             181,856
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (218,747)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (218,747)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 26,119
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (192,628)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (10)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of John Vassar, an Attorney, Appellant. Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Respondent.

Submitted November 13, 2007;

decided November 27, 2007

Reported below, 43 AD3d 83.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
160 So.2d 225

#### STATE of Louisiana, through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, v. GIFFORD-HILL & COMPANY, Inc.

No. 47045.

Feb. 7, 1964.

In re: ■ Gilíord-Hill & Company, Inc. applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Webster. 158 So.2d 448.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,576
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,080
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         92
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,988
<PP&E>                                           5,636
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,905
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,193
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            23
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,036
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,108
<SALES>                                          7,495
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,495
<CGS>                                            6,486
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        2
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   634
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    451
<INCOME-TAX>                                       155
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                296
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       296
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .198
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .198


</TABLE>
Case 2:06-cv-00725-MHT-CSC Document 5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00725-MHT-CSC Document 5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 2 of 2
APPENDIX F 

TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ZONES 

AUTOMATED TRAFFIC RECORDER DATA 

SAVON TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS AND DATA 

TRAFFIC MANUAL COUNT DATA 

SAFETY ANALYSIS DATA 

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 

TURNING STONE RESORT & CASINO PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION 
§ ̈¦I90

Oneida Lake

4

7 6

10

1

5

8

11

9

2

3

Vienna

Rome

Lenox

Sullivan

Vernon

Fenner

Lincoln

Nelson Eaton Madison

3311

Falls Blvd

Falls Blvd

55 55

TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ZONES

3

Bureau of Indian Affairs

NEPA EIS

Legend

Water bodies

Municipal Boundaries

Railway

Road Classification

Interstate Highway

Major Highway

Secondary Road

TAZ

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

FIGURE

F-1 Map Document: (S:\Projects\5477001\DEIS\MXDs\Transportation&Traffic\Appendix_TAZ.mxd)

11/1/2006 -- 4:42:02 PM

OOnneeiiddaa

MMaaddiissoonn

Sources:

Roads: StreetMap, ESRI

Traffic Impact: C&S, 2006

0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10

Miles
APPENDIX J 

NATION CORRESPONDENCE 

TRIBAL CORRESPONDENCE 

FEDERAL CORRESPONDENCE 

NEW YORK STATE CORRESPONDENCE 

CORRESPONDENCE WITH MADISON AND ONEIDA COUNTIES 

LOCAL CORRESPONDENCE 

SCHOOL DISTRICT CORRESPONDENCE 

MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
```

[109th Congress Public Law 274]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ274.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 774]]

Public Law 109-274
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
215 West Industrial Park Road in Harrison, Arkansas, as the ``John Paul 
  Hammerschmidt Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Aug. 17, 2006 -  [H.R. 
                                4811]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 215 West 
Industrial Park Road in Harrison, Arkansas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``John Paul Hammerschmidt Post Office Building''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``John Paul Hammerschmidt Post 
Office Building''.

    Approved August 17, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4811:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
            May 2, considered and passed House.
            Aug. 2, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
634.003 Responsibilities.       (a) The Procurement Executive is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 34.003(a).          (b) The Under Secretary for Management is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 34.003(c) and the acquisition executive for the purposes of A–109.    **Parent topic:** PART 634—MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Golden Build Construction Co. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W91B4M-09-P-7340 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60556 

Mr. Mahmood Nezam 

Chief Executive 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

L TC Timothy A. Furin, JA 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The government has moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, alleging 

that appellant had not submitted a claim to the contracting officer. In response, appellant 

expressed a desire to submit its claim to the contracting officer for a decision. As 

directed by the Board, the government provided appellant with the contact information 

for the contracting officer and appellant has indicated that it submitted its claim to the 

contracting officer. 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice to a timely appeal from a 

contracting officer's denial or deemed denial of the contractor's claim. 

Dated: 16 June 2016 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60556, Appeal of Golden Build 

Construction Co. rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           3,271
<SECURITIES>                                       350
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,888
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,254
<INVENTORY>                                      1,047
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,262
<PP&E>                                           9,770
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,783
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,828
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            70
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         28
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,626
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,570
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,003
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,134
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,691
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  16
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,162
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,162
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Raymond Jackson, Also Known as John Johnson, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 28, 1968, which denied defendant’s motion for reargument of a motion requesting a *Huntley*type hearing, which original motion was denied by order of the same court dated March 16, *6511968. Appeal dismissed. No appeal lies from an order denying reargument. Since a notice of appeal from the order dated March 16, 1968 has been filed, and since the parties have briefed the merits of the contentions raised in the motion culminating in said order, we hereby treat this appeal as being also from that order. Order dated March 16, 1968 affirmed. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 60 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 60 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 60 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 60 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 60 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 60 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 6 of 6
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">John Grate, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>S.U.S. Majestic, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>John Grate, appellant pro se.Timothy M. McCarthy, Esq., for respondent (no brief filed).</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered October 19, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>Plaintiff brought this small claims action to recover the sum of $5,000 for the alleged loss of personal property from his single room occupancy residence following an incident involving the police. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court dismissed the action. </p><p>In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (CCA 1807; <i>see</i> CCA 1804; <i>Ross v Friedman</i>, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; <i>Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). The determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (<i>see Vizzari v State of New York</i>, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; <i>Kincade v Kincade</i>, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (<i>see Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d at 126).</p><p>Upon a review of the record, we find that plaintiff has not demonstrated what items were allegedly stolen, the value of those items or that defendant was responsible for any loss that <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>plaintiff may have suffered. Consequently, the judgment in favor of defendant provided the parties with substantial justice (<i>see </i>CCA 1804, 1807).</p><p>Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.</p><p>WESTON, J.P., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: July 06, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### Joy Elrington, Appellant, v Ronald M. Staub et al., Respondents.

[815 NYS2d 468]

In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated April 27, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred. Although the plaintiff attested that the defendants suggested that she make a follow-up appointment some nine months in the future, it is undisputed that the plaintiff never scheduled an appointment with the defendants following her final visit with them on March 13, 2002. Accordingly, there is no basis in the record to conclude that a continuous course of treatment existed between the parties after this date *(see Young v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*91 NY2d 291, 296 [1998]; *Levinson v Etra,*306 AD2d 250, 251 [2003]; *Bellmund v Beth Israel Hosp.,*131 AD2d 796 [1987]). Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3399 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Argumex. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 6, 2006 

Mr. DEMINT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Argumex. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ARGUMEX. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.11.62 o-tert-Butylcyclohexyl acetate, cis form (CAS No. 

20298–69–9) (Agrumex) 

(provided for in subheading 

2915.39.45) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•S 3399 IS 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 125 (Friday, June 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 38975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15702]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

Sunshine Act Meetings

ACTION: Notice of a partially open meeting of the Board of Directors of 
the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

TIME AND PLACE: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. The meeting will be 
held at Ex-Im Bank in Room 321, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20571.

OPEN AGENDA ITEMS: Item No. 1: 2013 Review of the Content Policy.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The meeting will be open to public observation 
for Item No. 1 only.

FURTHER INFORMATION: Members of the public who wish to attend the 
meeting should call Joyce Stone, Office of the Secretariat, 811 Vermont 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571 (202) 565-3336 by close of business 
Monday, July 8, 2013.

Cristopolis A. Dieguez,
Program Specialist, Office of the General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2013-15702 Filed 6-26-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                       6,308,524
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               33,727,429
<ALLOWANCES>                                   692,004
<INVENTORY>                                  9,983,865
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            53,549,584
<PP&E>                                      47,651,609
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,235,631
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              90,802,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       30,240,948
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,773
<OTHER-SE>                                  59,906,740
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                90,802,264
<SALES>                                     30,000,337
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            30,000,337
<CGS>                                       12,530,098
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,530,098
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               324,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             232,931
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,576,588
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,574,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,002,588
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,002,588
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21
        

</TABLE>
#### § 984.71 Reports of handler inventory.

Each handler shall submit to the Board in such form and on such dates as the Board may prescribe, reports showing his or her inventory of inshell and shelled walnuts.

[73 FR 11339, Mar. 3, 2008]
#### § 958.84 Agents.

The Secretary may, by designation in writing, name any person, including any officer or employee of the Government, or name any agency in the United States Department of Agriculture, to act as his agent or representative in connection with any of the provisions of this part.
#### Cooper *v.*Cooper.

August 13, 1913.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Jones. Hall superior court. May 17, 1912.

*Johnson & Johnson,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. G. Collins,*contra.

Fish, C. J.

There being no complaint that any error of law was committed upon the trial, and the evidence being sufficient to authorize the verdict, the court did not err in 'refusing to grant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
# Subpart 1645.3—Providing Equipment

**Parent topic:**PART 1645—GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

## 1645.303-70 Contract clause.

The clause set forth in section 1652.245–70 shall be inserted in all FEHB Program contracts.