alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wai Man Hui, Appellant, v Town of Oyster Bay et al., Respondents.

[699 NYS2d 485]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), entered January 6, 1999, as granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them for failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e.

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

“The purpose of the notice of claim requirement is to afford *234the municipal corporation adequate opportunity to investigate the circumstance [s] surrounding the accident and explore the merits of the claim while the information is likely to be available” *(Altmayer v City of New York,*149 AD2d 638, 639; *see also, Adrian v Town of Oyster Bay,*262 AD2d 433; *Yankana v City of New York,*246 AD2d 645). To satisfy the requirements of the statute, the notice of claim must describe the accident with sufficient particularity to enable the defendant to locate the defect, conduct a proper investigation, and assess the merits of the claim *(see, Yankana v City of New York, supra; Walston v City of New York,*229 AD2d 485; *Caselli v City of New York,*105 AD2d 251).

In the instant case, the plaintiffs notice of claim alleged that his car went over a “dip, hole, excavation, elevation, obstruction, depression in the road at the intersection of Bethpage Sweet Hollow Road and Round Swamp Road”. Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, this statement failed to describe the nature of the alleged defect or its location with sufficient particularity to allow the defendants to locate it and conduct a timely investigation *(see, Adrian v Town of Oyster Bay, supra; Yankana v City of New York, supra; Walston v City of New York, supra; Zapata v City of New York,*225 AD2d 543). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
img128132380_0.jpg













Annual Statement as to Compliance

For the Year Ended December 31, 2022 (the “Reporting Period”)



Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust,

Series 2016-GC36



Pursuant to Section 3.06 of the Subservicing Agreement governing the referenced transaction (the “Servicing Agreement”) as an authorized officer of Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC (“Berkadia”), I hereby attest that:



i. A review of the activities and performance of Berkadia as Subservicer during the Reporting Period has been made under my supervision.




ii. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Berkadia as Subservicer has fulfilled, in all material respects, its obligations under this Subservicing Agreement throughout the period and no default by the Subservicer under the Subservicing Agreement has occurred and is continuing.




Berkadia,



/s/ Mark E. McCool



Mark E. McCool

President

February 10, 2023











Inv. 187 263 Lib. A

---
Exhibit 99

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 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 Quarterly Report of Chesapeake Funding LLC (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), George J Kilroy, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Neil J Cashen, as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  | /s/GEORGE J. KILROYGeorge J. Kilroy
Chief Executive Officer
May 14, 2003 |  |  |  | 
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  |  |  | 
| |  | /s/NEIL J. CASHENNeil J. Cashen
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2003     |  |  |  | 

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by §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.

---

QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 4.2

                               FORM OF TAX NOTICE
                             FOR EXERCISE OF OPTIONS


<PAGE>



                 TAX ISSUES RELATED TO EXERCISE OF STOCK OPTIONS


         This   memorandum   reviews  the  tax  effects  upon  the  exercise  of
"Non-Incentive  Stock Options"  ("NSOs") under the Guaranty Federal  Bancshares,
Inc. 2000 Stock Compensation Plan.

         Upon the  exercise of an NSO, the amount by which the fair market value
of the shares on the date of exercise  exceeds the exercise  price will be taxed
to the optionee as ordinary income.  The Company will be entitled to a deduction
in  the  same  amount,  provided  it  makes  all  required  withholdings  on the
compensation  element of the exercise.  In general,  the optionee's tax basis in
the shares  acquired by  exercising  an NSO is equal to the fair market value of
such shares on the date of exercise.  Upon a subsequent  sale of any such shares
in a  taxable  transaction,  the  optionee  will  realize  capital  gain or loss
(long-term  or  short-term,  depending  on whether the shares were held for more
than 12 months before the sale) in an amount equal to the difference between his
or her basis in the shares and the sale price.

         Special  rules  apply if an  optionee  pays  the  exercise  price  upon
exercise of NSOs with previously  acquired shares of stock.  Except as described
below with respect to shares  acquired  pursuant to ISOs,  such a transaction is
treated as a  tax-free  exchange  of the old  shares for the same  number of new
shares.  To that extent,  the optionee's  basis in the new shares is the same as
his or her basis in the old shares, i.e., there is a carryover of basis, and the
capital gain holding period runs without interruption from the date when the old
shares were  acquired.  The value of any new shares  received by the optionee in
excess of the number of old shares  surrendered  less any cash the optionee pays
for the new shares will be taxed as ordinary income. The optionee's basis in the
additional  shares is equal to the fair market  value of such shares on the date
the shares were  transferred,  and the capital gain holding period  commences on
the same date.  The effect of these  rules is to defer the date when any gain in
the old  shares  that  are used to buy new  shares  must be  recognized  for tax
purposes.  Stated  differently,  these  rules  allow an  optionee to finance the
exercise of an NSO by using shares of stock that he or she already owns, without
paying  current  tax on any  unrealized  appreciation  in the  value of all or a
portion of those old shares.
Before the Second Division,

May 31, 1944

No. 49451.

#### Protests 584121-6, etc., of O. Yoshizawa Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the hats in question, valued at less than $3 per dozen, are similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). Those imported and withdrawn for consumption prior to the Netherlands Trade Agreement (T. D. 48075) were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5), and those imported and withdrawn for consumption subsequent to said trade agreement were hold dutiable at 12)4 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) as amended. Protests sustained to this extent.
No. 46387.

#### Protest 616930-G of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the tennis rackets in question are similar to those the subject of *May*v. *United States*(T. D. 47760) and *Woolworth*v. *United States*(T. D. 48573) the claim at 30 percent under paragraph 1502 was sustained. Rubber mice in part of bamboo stipulated to be similar to those the subject of Abstract 40389 were held dutiable, *279■as claimed, as articles wholly or in part of bamboo, not specially provided for, at 45 percent under paragraph 409.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                                  [CHASE LOGO]


Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A.
Wilmington, DE

March 26, 2001



Management Report on Internal Control Over Servicing of Securitized Automobile
Financing Receivables

Management of The Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. is responsible for establishing
and maintaining an effective system of internal control over servicing of
securitized automobile financing receivables, which is designed to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the proper servicing of securitized automobile
financing receivables. The system contains self-monitoring mechanisms, and
actions are taken to correct deficiencies as they are identified.

There are inherent limitations in the effectiveness of any system of internal
control, including the possibility of human error and the circumvention or
overriding of controls. Accordingly, even an effective internal control system
can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to servicing of securitized
automobile financing receivables. Further, because of changes in conditions, the
effectiveness of an internal control system may vary over time.

Management of The Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. assessed its system of internal
control over servicing of securitized automobile financing receivables as of
December 31, 2000 in relation to criteria for effective internal control
described in "Internal Control - Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee
of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on this
assessment, management believes that, as of December 31, 2000, the Chase
Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. maintained an effective system of internal control over
servicing of securitized automobile financing receivables.


                                             /s/ Keith Schuck
                                             -----------------------
                                             Keith Schuck
                                             Vice President
                                             Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         105,001
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,656
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,088
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               170,774
<PP&E>                                      11,786,034
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,761,746
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,340,168
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,186,050
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       791,782
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,032,290
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,340,168
<SALES>                                         61,518
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               316,647
<CGS>                                           32,278
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  367,048
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              52,426
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (50,401)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (50,048)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.03)
        

</TABLE>
#### W. X. Huber Co. *v.*United States

No. 7718.

Entry No. 1215, etc.

(Decided July 25, 1949)

*Philip Stein*for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard H. Welsh,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court,

> (1) That the merchandise involved in the appeals listed in the attached schedule consists of rayon articles, made of rayon which in all material respects is such or similar to the rayon in the articles the subject of decision in *United States*v. *Nippon Dry Goods Co.,*Reap. Dec. 5006, affirming Reap. Dec. 4704; and that the issue herein and conditions as to the market value are the same as the issue and Conditions as to market value in the cited cases, and the record in said eases is hereby incorporated herein.

> (2) That the appraised values of the rayon articles covered by these appeals, less any additions made by the importer by reason of the so-called Japanese consumption tax,, to meet advances made by the Appraiser in similar cases, represent the prices at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and represent the export values of such merchandise and that there were no higher foreign values at the time of exportation thereof.

> (3) That the appeals herein are abandoned as to all merchandise except the rayon articles.

> (4) That this stipulation may be filed and made a part of the record herein, and the case continued, subject to further disposition.

> It is further affirmed by the undersigned Philip Stein, counsel for the plaintiff, that he has personally examined each of these appeals, and of liis own knowledge, certifies that they have been duly signed and filed within the statutory time.

*257On the agreed facts I find that the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the rayon articles involved herein, and that such values are the appraised values, less any additions made by the importer by reason of the so-called Japanese consumption tax, to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

The appeals as to all other articles having been formally abandoned are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. George SOWELL, Respondent.

No. 92,514.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 3, 1999.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, James W. Rogers, Tallahassee Bureau Chief, Criminal Appeals, and Giselle Lylen Rivera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner.

John F. Daniel of Daniel & Komarek, Chartered, Panama City, Florida, for Respondent.

Grant J. Shostak, St. Louis, Missouri, for The NORML Foundation, Amicus Curiae.

*422PER CURIAM.

We accepted jurisdiction to review *Sowell v. State,*— So.2d -, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D549, 1998 WL 64945 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 19, 1998), to answer the following question certified to be of great public importance:

> WHETHER THE CHAPTER 93-92, LAWS OF FLORIDA, AMENDMENT TO SECTION 893.03(1)(D), FLORIDA STATUTES, EFFECTS A CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL ABROGATION OF THE COMMON LAW DEFENSE OF MEDICAL NECESSITY AS RECOGNIZED IN *JENKS,*AND AS APPLIED TO A SERIOUSLY ILL INDIVIDUAL WHO CULTIVATES MARIJUANA SOLELY FOR PERSONAL USE TO OBTAIN MEDICAL RELIEF?

After a more complete review of the certified question and decision of the First District, we conclude that the actual legal question deals with an extremely narrow principle of law, and, as phrased, does not present an issue of “great public importance.” *See Sowell*at D549 (Allen, J., concurring) (dissenting as to certification). Because we improvidently granted jurisdiction, we dismiss this petition.

It is so ordered.

HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ„ concur.
No. 44276.

#### Protest 7810-K of Pyridium Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

There was no appearance on the part of the plaintiff when this case was called for trial. On the record presented the protest was overruled.
October 6, 1942

No. 47620.

Suit 4370.

#### Alex. *Benecke*v. *United States.*

C. D. 509 affirmed. C. A. D. 214.
##### 



O2Diesel Corporation
(A Development Stage Company)
March 31, 2005 EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER I, David Koontz, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of O2Diesel
Corporation;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
quarterly 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 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)) for the registrant and have:  a)
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during
the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    [Omitted pursuant to the guidance of Release No. 33-8238 (September 5, 2003).]c)
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; andd)
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. Date: May 16, 2005
    By:
    /s/ David KoontzName: David KoontzTitle: Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Richard Davidson, Chief Financial
Officer of Kintera, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Registrant.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2007         
|                             
|/s/ Richard Davidson         
|Richard Davidson             
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Financial Officer)
No. 53254.

#### American Express Co. *v.*United States,

protest 134377-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNIFAB
INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                              92
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,514
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,153
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,741
<PP&E>                                          40,063
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,344
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  79,611
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,718
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            68
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,187
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    79,611
<SALES>                                         37,766
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,766
<CGS>                                           32,601
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,601
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 707
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    435
<INCOME-TAX>                                       245
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                190
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       190
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03


</TABLE>