alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Claire A. Webber et al., Respondents, v K-Mart Corporation, Defendant, and Colson Equipment Co., Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 894]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Colson Equipment Co. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), dated December 10, 1998, as is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it, (2) an amended judgment of the same court (Burke, J.), entered January 13, 1999, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it in the principal sum of $206,250, plus interest from October 14, 1998, and (3) an order of the same court (Burke, J.), dated February 9, 1999, as denied its motion for renewal.

Ordered that the appeal by Colson Equipment Co. from the judgment is dismissed, as the judgment was superseded by the amended judgment; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended judgment and order are affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiff Claire A. Webber sustained an injury to her right eye as she was dismounting a wheelchair. Subsequently, she and her husband commenced an action against the defendant K-Mart Corporation, which furnished the wheelchair to the injured plaintiff for her use while she was shopping, and the defendant Colson Equipment Co. (hereinafter Colson), the *535manufacturer of the wheelchair. The plaintiffs were awarded damages after a jury trial. Colson has appealed.

Contrary to Colson’s contention, the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish that a design defect, a “hook” or metal attachment protruding from the bottom of the wheelchair’s basket, caused the injured plaintiff’s eye injury *(see, Gayle v City of New York,*92 NY2d 936). Any error in precluding Colson from reading into the record deposition testimony that the plaintiffs’ daughter told a K-Mart employee that the wheelchair was broken was harmless. The plaintiffs read excerpts of the same witness’s deposition testimony, in which she stated that she told K-Mart employees that the wheelchair was “damaged”. Further, the trial court did not err in giving a missing witness charge against Colson’s quality control supervisor. The plaintiffs’ use of the supervisor’s deposition testimony did not constitute a waiver of their right to request the charge *(see, Farrell v Labarbera,*181 AD2d 715).

The award for the injured plaintiff’s past and future pain and suffering did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation *(see,*CPLR 5501 [c]).

The remaining contentions of Colson are without merit. Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.
§ 1472.225 What actions must I take concerning employees who are convicted of drug violations in the workplace? There are two actions you must take if an employee is convicted of a drug violation in the workplace: ( a ) First, you must notify Federal agencies if an employee who is engaged in the performance of an award informs you about a conviction, as required by § 1472.205(c)(2), or you otherwise learn of the conviction. Your notification to the Federal agencies must_ ( 1 ) Be in writing;
( 2 ) Include the employee's position title;
( 3 ) Include the identification number(s) of each affected award;
( 4 ) Be sent within ten calendar days after you learn of the conviction; and
( 5 ) Be sent to every Federal agency on whose award the convicted employee was working. It must be sent to every awarding official or his or her official designee, unless the Federal agency has specified a central point for the receipt of the notices.
( b ) Second, within 30 calendar days of learning about an employee's conviction, you must either_ ( 1 ) Take appropriate personnel action against the employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), as amended; or
( 2 ) Require the employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for these purposes by a Federal, State or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency.
§ 298.66 Reporting exemption for State collection of data. ( a ) The Office of Airline Information may exempt a commuter air carrier from the reporting requirements of § 298.61 of this part if a State government collects the information specified in that section and provides it to the Department by the dates specified. The data provided to the Department in this manner must be at least as reliable as if they were collected by the Department directly.
( b ) The Office of Airline Information will provide assistance to any State agency interested in participating in this exemption program.
[ER-1399, 50 FR 21, Jan. 2, 1985, as amended by Doc. No. 47939, 57 FR 40104, Sept. 2, 1992; 60 FR 66726, Dec. 26, 1995]
#### GAGLIARDI v PIRRONE

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9736.

Decided Mar 4, 1929

Rodway & Ferris, Cleveland, for Gagliardi.

Albert G Levine, Cleveland, for Pirrone.

LEVINE, J.

We are not called upon at this time to inquire into the causes of action set forth in the plaintiff’s statement of claim. The action is still pending in the Municipal Court and we are limited solely to the question of whether the Municipal Court committed error in granting defendants’ motion to dissolve the attachment.

Generally speaking, the term “work and labor” may comprehend all labor whether physical or mental, but in a legal sense the term is understood in the popular sense which refers solely to bodily labor or that in which such labor is the principal ingredient. An acrobat who gives exhibitions at a theatér exerts physical strength but in a popular or legal sense his work is not denominated as work and labor. The work which Paul Pirrone was engaged in, namely, the giving of boxing exhibitions, involved great physical exertion but such work of giving boxing exhibitions cannot be characterized in a legal sense as “work and labor” within the meaning of the statute. If the contention of the plaintiff were correct it would follow that a boxer or prize fighter who hires out to another to give exhibitions for a stated sum of money to be paid to him, is to be regarded as a laborer. Without citing any authorities but keeping in mind the legislative intent, it is quite clear that what the legislature intended was to protect those engaged in manual labor by allowing. an attachment in favor of the laboring man so as to make effective a judgment rendered in his favor.

If ij; be conceded that Paul Pirrone, who engaged in giving boxing exhibitions, is not to be regarded as doing work and labor within the meaning of the statue, his trainer is certainly not in a better position than would be Paul Pirrone himself. The giving of boxing exhibitions is popularly regarded as a profession though it involves great physical exertipn. The plaintiff undertook to train Paul Pirrone for these boxing exhibitions and also to secure engagements for him. This work on the part of plaintiff was nothing more or less than to prepare Paul Pirrone for the pursuit of his profession of boxing, and while it involves physical exertion on the part of the plaintiff, it is not in a popular or legal sense to be regarded as work and labor, but instead, as a species of professional services. The fistic art does, of course, depend upon the proper use of the arm, but it is not for that reason to be regarded as manual labor so as to bring jt within the provisions of the Code.

We hold, therefore, that the court was correct in granting defendants’ motion to dissolve the attachment. The judgment of the Municipal Court is therefore affirmed.

Vickery, PJ and Sullivan, J, concur.
Exhibit 10.52

 

Montreal, February 7, 2014

 

VIA COURIER

 

Davids Tea Inc.

Jody Bessner, Lease Administrator

5430 Ferrier

TMR, QC H4P 1M2

 

RE:                        Storage Agreement Extension

1034 rue St-Jean, Quebec City, Quebec (the “Leased Premises”)

 

Dear Jody,

 

Further to your request, this Extension letter acknowledges that the Storage Agreement between Le Château Inc. (“Le Château”) and Davids Tea Inc. (“Davids Tea”) dated May 28, 2012 will be extended on a month-to-month basis, commencing on February 1, 2014.

 

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Storage Agreement, Le Château has the right to terminate the Storage Agreement and Extension thereof, for any reason whatsoever, upon a prior notice of seventy-two (72) hours given to Davids Tea Head Office.

 

If Le Château exercises the foregoing right of termination:

 

(i)                                        the Storage Term shall be deemed to expire on the date of termination specified in Le Château’s notice of termination (the “Termination Date”);

 

(ii)                                     Davids Tea shall execute and deliver an acknowledgment of termination in Le Château’s form and any other documentation that may be required by Le Chateau in order to give effect to the provisions of this right;

 

(iii)                              Davids Tea shall deliver vacant possession of the Leased Premises to Le Château upon the Termination Date in accordance with the terms of the Storage Agreement and any extensions thereof; and

 

(iv)                                 Davids Tea shall pay to Le Château all amounts of Rent due up to and including the Termination Date and all Rent shall be adjusted as of the Termination Date, all without any compensation, damages or indemnification of any kind from Le Château.

 

The parties hereto confirm that the Storage Agreement, as modified by this Agreement, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties pertaining to subject matter hereof. All other terms and conditions of the Storage Agreement will remain in full force and effect.

 











 

	
Agreed and dated on February 7 , 2014
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
DAVIDS TEA INC.
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Per:
    	
/s/ Howard Tafler
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Per:
    	
/s/ Dominic Choquette
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
I/We have the   authority to bind the company.
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Agreed and dated on February 14 , 2014
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
LE CHÂTEAU INC.
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Per:
    	
/s/ Emilia Di Raddo
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Emelia Di Raddo, CA
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
President
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Per:
    	
/s/ Lee Albert
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Lee Albert
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Director, Real Estate
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
I/We have the   authority to bind the company.
#### In the Matter of the Public Service Commission, Respondent, against New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant.

Argued April 22, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*Kenneth Creble*for appellant.

*Gay H. Brown, Sherman C. Ward, Sidney Kabalkin*and *Laurence J. Olmsted*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
#### § 1921.7 Stipulations of compliance.

At any time prior to the issuance of a complaint in the proceeding, the Assistant Solicitor in charge of trial litigation may in his discretion, enter into stipulations with the prospective respondent, whereby the latter admits the material facts and agrees to discontinue the acts or practices which are intended to be set up as violative of the Act or parts 1915 and 1918 of this subtitle. Such stipulations shall be admissible as evidence of such acts and practices in any subsequent proceeding in law or equity or under these regulations against such person.
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

MATTHEW DYE, by his Guardian, SIPORIN & ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 4, 2017

v No. 330308
Washtenaw Circuit Court
ESURANCE PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY and PRIORITY HEALTH, LC No. 14-000516-NF

Defendants/CrossPlaintiffs/Appellees,

and

GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY,

Defendant/CrossDefendant/Appellant,

and

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN,

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: B ECKERING , P.J., and O’C ONNELL and B ORRELLO , JJ.

O’C ONNELL
, J. ( concurring in part a nd dissenting in part ).

For the reasons stated by the ma jority, I concur with the majo rity opinion that Paul Dye is not a “registrant” of the veh icle for purposes of MCL 500.3101( 1). I also concur with the majority opinion that the trial c ourt erred in granting Esuranc e’s motion for summary disposition on its cross-claim for enforcement of the alleged settlement ag reement. I respectfully dissent as to the majority’s conclusion that Paul Dye may qualify as an ow ner of this vehicle. Based upon these set of facts, M atthew Dye is both the registrant and owne r of this vehicle.-2- I would reverse and remand f or further proceedings.

/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

          - [Docket No. 00-043-1] 

# AGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

We are giving notice of a meeting of the National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on June 14-15, 2000, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the National Wildlife Research Center in the Longs Peak Room, 4101 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Joanne Garrett, Acting Director, Operational Support Staff, WS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 87, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234; (301) 734-7921. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee (Committee) advises the Secretary of Agriculture concerning policies, program issues, and research needed to conduct the Wildlife Services (WS) program. The Committee also serves as a public forum enabling those affected by the WS program to have a voice in the program's policies. 

                    The meeting will focus on operational and research activities and will be open to the public. Due to time constraints, the public will not be able to participate in the Committee's discussions. However, written statements concerning meeting topics may be filed with the Committee before or after the meeting by sending them to Ms. Joanne Garrett at the address listed under                     **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,**                     or may be filed at the meeting. Please refer to Docket No. 00-043-1 when submitting your statements.                 

This notice of meeting is given pursuant to section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Done in Washington, DC, this 4th day of May 2000. 

Bobby R. Acord, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 00-11832 Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-34-U
POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned Director and/or
officer of Kinark Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby
constitutes and appoints Paul R. Chastain the true and lawful agent and
attorney-in-fact of the undersigned with full power of substitution and
authority to sign for the undersigned, as Director or an officer of the
Company, or as both, the Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the period
ended December 31, 1999, and any and all exhibits and amendments thereto to be
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C. pursuant
to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; hereby
ratifying and confirming all acts taken by such agent and attorney-in-fact as
herein authorized.

Dated: March 29, 2000                   /s/ Ronald J. Evans
                                        Ronald J. Evans
Exhibit 32.a

This Certificate is being furnished and shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section. This Certification shall not be
incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other document
pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in such
filing.


              Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
                     Of Title 18 of the United States Code

In connection with the Annual Report of the Companies (as defined below) on Form
10-K (the "reports") for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael G. Morris, the
chief executive officer of

                     American Electric Power Company, Inc.
                             AEP Generating Company
                           AEP Texas Central Company
                            AEP Texas North Company
                           Appalachian Power Company
                        Columbus Southern Power Company
                         Indiana Michigan Power Company
                             Kentucky Power Company
                               Ohio Power Company
                       Public Service Company of Oklahoma
                      Southwestern Electric Power Company

(the "Companies"), certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbarnes Oxley Act of 2002 that, based on my
knowledge (i) the Reports fully comply with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained
in the Reports fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Companies.



/s/ Michael G. Morris

Michael G. Morris

March 10, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by
American Electric Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 23



Consent of Independent Public Accountant

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports dated February 20, 1998, included in the company's 1997 Annual Report to
Stockholders  and  incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K and on page 27 of
this Form 10-K, into the company's  previously filed Registration  Statements on
Form  S-8  File  Nos.  33-24274,  33-50949  and  333-28235,  and  the  company's
previously  filed  Registration  Statements  on Form S-3 File Nos.  33-5473  and
33-66112.



                                                  (ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP)
                                                   ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
  March 26, 1998
# Exhibit B

USCA Case #14-1083 Document #1514095 Filed: 09/25/2014 Page 1 of 3Emission Event Report

http://www11.tceq.texas.gov/oce/eer/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.getDetails&target=77464 [9/11/2014 5:11:45 PM] 

## Emission Event Reporting Database

Regulated entity name E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS LA PORTE PLANT Physical location GO E ON HWY 225 FROM E LOOP 610 TAKE EXIT SENS/STRANG & TURN L AT LIGHT CROSS OVERPASS & CONT ON SENS RD TURN R ONTO STRANG & CONT TO END OF STRANG RD Regulated entity RN number RN100225085 City, County LA PORTE, HARRIS Type(s) of air emissions event: EMISSIONS EVENT Event began: 06/15/2006 8:53PM

This is based on the: FINAL REPORT Event ended: 06/20/2006 11:39PM

Cause The Lannate unit experienced problems with the dichloromethane recovery system. The unit shutdown to make repairs to the system (no emissions were generated). The unit was restarted on 6/15/2006 at 20:53 with the relief device (automatic) in the open position. The relief device was reset (closed) on 6/20/2006 at 23:39. The problem was discovered on 6/21/2006 at 15:00 by an area engineer during a data review. The amount released was then calculated and reported. The National Response Center was notified of this event at 16:04 on 6/21/2006 (Incident # 801542).
Action

taken The relief device was reset (closed). The distributive control system is being modified to prevent start-up of the unit with the relief device open. Emissions estimation method Calculated.


## Source 1: Lannate Production Unit , FIN number Source 2: Methylene Chloride Relief Device , FIN number N/A SITE SEARCH:

SUBJECT INDEX Air Water Waste
Search TCEQ Data Agency Organization Map USCA Case #14-1083 Document #1514095 Filed: 09/25/2014 Page 2 of 3Emission Event Report

http://www11.tceq.texas.gov/oce/eer/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.getDetails&target=77464 [9/11/2014 5:11:45 PM] 

## Source 3: Relief Valve , EPN number

Contaminant Authorization Limit Amount Released Dichloromethane 1834 0.0 8700.0 lbs (est.) 

## No other sources

Return to search form Air subjects Region contact information Air emissions events/maintenance activity forms 30 TAC air quality rules USCA Case #14-1083 Document #1514095 Filed: 09/25/2014 Page 3 of 3
#### In the Matter of Public Service Commission, Respondent, against Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant.

Argued April 22, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*Otto M. Buerger*and *Louis J. Carruthers*for appellant.

*Gay H. Brown, Sherman C. Ward, Sidney Kabalkin*and *Laurence J. Olmsted*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Pinch and Rippey, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Thomas McMeekan, Appellant, against Department of Health of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

Argued April 21, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*523
      *Louis Susman*and *William Levin*for appellant.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel {EdmundL. Palmieri, Julius Isaacs*and *Leonard M. Wallstein, Jr.,*of counsel), for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
Order entered June 17, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00175-CV

PATRICIA A. ERVING, Appellant

V.

GARLAND HOUSING AGENCY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-15968

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s June 15, 2022 second motion for extension of 

time to file her brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no 

later than July 15, 2022.

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN

JUSTICE