alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sportsplex of Middletown, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Catskill Regional Off-Track Betting Corporation, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 588]

—In an action, *inter alia,*for a judgment declaring the parties’ respective rights under a concession agreement, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Sherwood, J.), dated April 28, 1994, as, upon reargument, (1) adhered to the branch of a prior determination made in an order of the same court, dated February 28, 1994, which granted their application for preliminary injunctive relief pending the hearing and determination of the action only on condition that they post security in the amount of $100,000 and (2) imposed the additional conditions that they pay all arrears accrued pursuant to the terms of the concession agreement and make future monthly payments in the amount of $8,500 per month.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The purpose of a *Yellowstone*injunction *(see, First Natl. Stores v Yellowstone Shopping Ctr.,*21 NY2d 630) is to allow a tenant confronted by a threat of termination of the lease to obtain a stay tolling the running of the cure period so that after a determination of the merits, the tenant may cure the defect and avoid a forfeiture of the leasehold *(see, Post v 120 E. End Ave. Corp.,*62 NY2d 19; *Matter of Langfur,*198 AD2d 355). In granting *Yellowstone*relief, the court may impose reasonable conditions, including the posting of an undertaking by the party seeking relief *(see, Perón Rest, v Young & Rubicam,*179 AD2d 469) in an amount rationally related to the quantum of damages which the nonmoving party would sustain in the event the moving party is later determined not to have been entitled to the injunction *(see, 61 W. 62nd Owners Corp. v Harkness Apt. Owners Corp.,*173 AD2d 372, 373). The requirement that the movant also pay "outstanding and prospective use and occupancy fees” in addition to a bond may not be excessive *(61 W. 62nd Owners Corp. v Harkness Apt. Owners Corp., supra).*Absent a showing that the court improvidently exercised its discretion by imposing conditions in excess of those necessary to protect the nonmoving party’s interests, the conditions imposed will not be disturbed *(see,*7A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac If 6312.11; *Donald Shaffer, Inc. v Shaffer,*44 AD2d 725).

Here, because the conditions imposed by the court in granting the injunctive relief are in an amount rationally related to the damages the defendant would incur if it is determined that the plaintiffs were not entitled to injunctive relief, the court *429did not improvidently exercise its discretion, and the conditions will not be disturbed.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MedAssets, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining 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 Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/ L. Neil Hunn

L. Neil HunnExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
```

[111th Congress Public Law 313]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 3326]]

Public Law 111-313
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
     To improve the accuracy of fur product labeling, and for other 
            purposes. <<NOTE: Dec. 18, 2010 -  [H.R. 2480]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Truth in Fur 
Labeling Act of 2010.>> 
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 15 USC 69 note.>> SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Truth in Fur Labeling Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EXEMPTION TO FUR PRODUCT LABELING 
                    REQUIREMENTS FOR PRODUCTS CONTAINING 
                    RELATIVELY SMALL QUANTITIES OR VALUES OF FUR.

    (a) In General.--Section 2(d) of the Fur Products Labeling Act (15 
U.S.C. 69(d)) is amended by striking ``; except that'' and all that 
follows through ``contained therein''.
    (b) Effective <<NOTE: 15 USC 69 note.>> Date.--The amendment made by 
subsection (a) shall take effect on the date that is 90 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. EXEMPTION FOR DISCRETE SALES BY NON-RETAILERS.

    Section 3 of the Fur Products Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 69a) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g) No provision of this Act shall apply to a fur product--
            ``(1) the fur of which was obtained from an animal through 
        trapping or hunting; and
            ``(2) when sold in a face to face transaction at a place 
        such as a residence, craft fair, or other location used on a 
        temporary or short term basis, by the person who trapped or 
        hunted the animal, where the revenue from the sale of apparel or 
        fur products is not the primary source of income of such 
        person.''.
SEC. 4. FEDERAL <<NOTE: Deadline. Federal Register, 
                    publication. Notice.>> TRADE COMMISSION REVIEW 
                    OF FUR PRODUCTS NAME GUIDE.

    Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Federal Trade Commission shall publish in the Federal Register 
notice of, and an opportunity to comment on, a review of the Fur 
Products Name Guide (16 CFR 301.0).
SEC. 5. PAYGO COMPLIANCE.

    The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying with 
the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the

[[Page 124 STAT. 3327]]

Congressional Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, 
provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on 
passage.

    Approved December 18, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2480:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 111-571 (Comm. on Energy and Commerce).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010):
            July 28, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 7, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### JULES J. FALCONE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. NEW JERSEY BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

See same case below: 98 *N. J. Super.*138.

*Messrs. Gebhardt & Kiefer*and *Mr. Richard Dieterly*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Augustus S. Goetz*and *Mr. John Gilbert*for the respondent.

February 13, 1968.

Denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Glen Matthews, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 235]

—Yesawich Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tompkins County (Barrett, J.), rendered January 7, 1994, upon a verdict convicting defendant of three counts of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant was accused of three separate transactions during August 1993 involving the sale of cocaine to an undercover police officer. At trial, defendant invoked an agency defense. To negate this defense, the prosecution was permitted to introduce evidence of negotiations concerning a failed drug transaction which occurred earlier in August 1993 as well as a certificate of conviction involving a previous sale of a controlled substance *(see, People v Castaneda,*173 AD2d 349, 350, *lv denied*78 NY2d 963).

Defendant’s contention that County Court erred in failing to give a cautionary instruction concerning the limited purpose *803for which the evidence of the failed transaction was admitted has not been preserved for review, for defendant neither requested such instruction nor objected to the lack thereof *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Williams,*50 NY2d 996, 998; *People v Parsons,*150 AD2d 614, 615, *Iv denied*74 NY2d 850; *People v Amazon, 52*AD2d 1012, 1013). Moreover, although County-Court should have cautioned the jury *(see, People v Best,*121 AD2d 457, 458, *lv denied*68 NY2d 809), the failure to do so was harmless, for the evidence in question was in no way damaging, but was entirely consistent with, and in fact provided additional support for, defendant’s agency theory.

Defendant also complains that the charge to the jury limiting the jury’s consideration of his prior drug sale conviction was inadequate. By instructing the jury that it could consider the conviction insofar as it tended to disprove the agency defense, and for no other purpose, County Court properly limited and minimized the prejudicial impact that the admission of this evidence might have had *(see, People v Allweiss,*48 NY2d 40, 49).

Nor is reversal warranted, as defendant urges, because of the language used to apprise the jury of the meaning of the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt”. No particular wording is mandated when explaining this concept. Here, the charge as a whole, including the use of the phrase "firmly convinced”, correctly and unequivocally established the proper standard of proof and conveyed the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury *(see, Victor v Nebraska,*511 US —, —, 114 S Ct 1239, 1251; *People v Gutkaiss,*206 AD2d 628, 631-632, *lv denied*84 NY2d 936; *People v House,*132 AD2d 807, 808).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III and White, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Desert Health Products, Inc., (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operation
            of the Company.

By: /s/ Johnny Shannon
    ------------------
Johnny Shannon             Date: March 30, 2004
Chief Executive Officer


Exhibit 32.1 - Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002


                                                                               1
No. 55315.

#### Hensel, Bruckmann *&*Lorbacher, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 164105-K (A) (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
# C_2008088EN.01000101.xml

| 9.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/1

---

OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 3 April 2008

at the request of the Council of the European Union on a proposal for a Council Regulation on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community

(CON/2008/15)

(2008/C 88/01)

Introduction and legal basis

On 19 March 2008, the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the Council of the European Union for an opinion on a proposal for a Council Regulation on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (hereinafter ‘the proposed Regulation’), codifying Council Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 of 22 November 1993 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (1).

1

The ECB's competence to deliver an opinion is based on the first indent of Article 105(4) of the Treaty establishing the European Community. In accordance with the first sentence of Article 17.5 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank, the Governing Council has adopted this opinion.

Observations

The ECB has no specific comments on the proposed Regulation.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 3 April 2008.

The President of the ECB

Jean-Claude TRICHET

---

(1)  OJ L 332, 31.12.1993, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2103/2005 (OJ L 337, 22.12.2005, p. 1).

1

---
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00426-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.D., A CHILD §

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 235th District 

Court

of Cooke County (CV17-00736)

May 9, 2019

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

 Justice Wade Birdwell
#### In the Matter of Pamela Marland, Petitioner, v Gordon Ambach, as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Albany County,

October 25, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Boyd, Holbrook & Seward*for petitioner. *Robert D. Stone*and *Frederick W. Burgess*for Gordon Ambach, respondent. *Allen G. Schwartz, Corporation Counsel (H. Kenneth Wolfe*of counsel), for Board of Education of the City School District of New York and another, respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Edward S. Conway, J.

This is a motion by the petitioner for an order pursuant to CPLR 2221 granting her leave to reargue her motion for reinstatement as a teacher, which motion was denied by this court on February 27, 1978 (93 Misc 2d 328).

Petitioner seeks reargument of the prior decision based upon the recent enactment of a bill by the New York State Legislature on July 5, 1978, which is chapter 465 of the Laws of 1978, which repealed section 210 (subd 2, par [f]) of the Civil Service Law and provides as follows: "§ 2. Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of law, the probationary period of *642any public employee or loss of tenure imposed pursuant to the provisions of former paragraph (f) of subdivision two of section two hundred ten of the civil service law, repealed by this act, is hereby terminated.”

Petitioner contends that the effect of this law is to restore her to tenured status and to require her reinstatement as a tenured teacher.

This court, after considering the new legislation, does not feel that it should affect its opinion in that petitioner was terminated in November of 1976 long before the legislation relied upon by her became effective and, as the legislation has no retroactive effect but only prospective application in the case of individuals who are presently serving on probationary status as the result of strike activity, the motion for reargument should be denied.
EXHIBIT
      32





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








In
      connection with the Annual Report of Patriot
      National Bancorp, Inc. (the
      “ *Company* ”)
      on
      Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ *Report* ”),
      we,
      Angelo De Caro and Robert F. O’Connell, the Chief Executive
      Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/
                Angelo De CaroAngelo
                De CaroChief
                Executive Officer/s/
                Robert F. O’ConnellRobert F.
                O’ConnellChief
                Financial Officer





March
      28,
      2007





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





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission and shall not be considered filed as part of the Report.
#### Robert T. Smart, *Respondent, v.*Andrew J. Smart, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 523

_____________________________ G EORGE C. P UGH , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark Borello , Judge

. June 4, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W ETHERELL , R AY , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

George C. Pugh, pro se, Appellant.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney General
, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
No. 41825.

#### Protest 287882-G of R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the record it was found that certain of the items consist of Normandy laces similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)







In connection with the Quarterly Report of Elderwatch, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Allan Weiss, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



By/s/ Allan Weiss

Allan Weiss

Principal Accounting Officer



Date:  August 17, 2005
# C_2007277EN.01001701.xml

| 20.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/17

---

Communication from the Minister for Economic Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the basis of Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

(2007/C 277/11)

The Minister for Economic Affairs hereby gives notice that an application has been received for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block G13 as indicated on the map appended as Annex 3 to the Mining Regulation (Mijnbouwregeling) (Government Gazette (Staatscourant) 2002, No 245).

Mijnbouwregeling

Staatscourant

With reference to the Directive 94/22/EC mentioned in the introduction and Article 15 of the Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet) (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees (Staatsblad) 2002, No 542), the Minister for Economic Affairs hereby invites interested parties to submit a competing application for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block G13 of the Dutch continental shelf.

Mijnbouwwet

Staatsblad

The Minister for Economic Affairs is the competent authority for the granting of authorisations. The criteria, conditions and requirements referred to in Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 6(2) of the above-mentioned Directive are set out in the Mining Act (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2002, No 542).

Applications may be submitted during the 13 weeks following the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and should be sent to: The Minister for Economic Affairs, For the attention of J.C. De Groot, Director for the Energy Market, ALP/562, P.O. Box 20101, 2500 EC Den Haag, the Netherlands.

Official Journal of the European Union

Applications submitted after the expiry of this period will not be considered.

A decision on the applications will be taken not later than twelve months after this period has expired.

Further information can be obtained from the following telephone number: (31-70) 379 77 62 (contact person: E.J. Hoppel).

---
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





The
undersigned, Tony Philipp, the Chief Executive Officer and Paul Schmidt, the
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of UPSNAP, INC. (the "Company"), DO HEREBY
CERTIFY that:





1.  The
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31,
2006 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.  Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 14th
day of February 2008.








/s/ Tony
Philipp


Tony
Philipp


Chief
Executive Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer)





/s/ Paul
Schmidt


Paul
Schmidt


Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
UpSNAP, Inc. and will be retained by Upsnap, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Thomas Murphy, *as*Administrator, *etc., Respondent, v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, *Appel*lant.

Order of Special Term and taxation reversed and set aside unless the plaintiff consents to reduce the item of interest, by computing interest at six per cent instead of seven, from the time of the death of the plaintiff’s intestate to the date of the entry of judgment, and in that case affirmed as so modified, without costs of this appeal. *(Salter*v. *Black River Railroad Company,*decided in this department in January, 1881, and affirmed in Court of Appeals.)