alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William Marcus, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 78111.)

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), dated September 6, 1989, which denied his application for leave to file a late claim against the State of New York.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the application for leave to file a late claim is granted.

On June 17, 1988, the claimant, while cycling with a companion, allegedly fell off his bicycle due to a pothole located at a point where the ramp of an exit from a State highway joins a road evidently owned by the County of Suffolk. Because of the claimant’s counsel’s erroneous calculation as to when the 90-day period within which claimant had to file a claim or a notice of intention to file a claim against the State would elapse *(see,*Court of Claims Act § 10 [3]), the claimant’s notice of intention was not filed with the clerk of the court or received in the office of the Attorney-General until 100 days after the accident *(see,*Court of Claims Act § 11). The State formally disputes that it owns the site of the accident, as does the County, against which litigation is currently pending in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County.

Upon the State’s assertion of untimeliness as an affirmative defense in a verified answer to the claim thereafter interposed, the claimant made application for permission to serve and file a late claim "nunc pro tunc”. The Court of Claims ultimately denied the application solely on the ground that the claimant failed to establish that there was merit to the claim. It considered none of the other factors enumerated in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6).

We conclude that the analysis of the application by the Court of Claims was too limited *(see, Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV v New York State Employees’ Retirement Sys.,*55 NY2d 979, 981; *Weaver v State of New York,*112 AD2d 416). We also *725conclude that, although a sharp but undeveloped factual issue exists as to which governmental entity bears responsibility for maintenance of the roadway where the accident occurred, there appears to be merit to the claim within the meaning of Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) *(see, Goldberg v State of New York,*122 AD2d 248, 249; *Matter of Santana v New York State Thruway Auth.,*92 Misc 2d 1; *see also, Weaver v State of New York, supra).*Moreover, although the excuse for the delay in filing the notice of intention is not compelling *(cf., Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV v New York State Employees’ Retirement Sys., supra),*that delay was brief and it does not appear that the State, which admittedly assigned an investigator to the claim, suffered substantial prejudice on account of it. Under the circumstances, including that the claimant’s only available remedies are actions against the disputing governmental entities *(see,*Court of Claims Act § 10 [6]), the Court of Claims should have granted the application. Kooper, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT NO. 21



SCHEDULE OF SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



|                                           |  |              |   |  |                                          
|------------------------------------------ |  | ------------ | - |  | -----------------------------------------
|                                           |  | PercentOwned |   |  | Jurisdictionof Incorporation/Organization
|1. Security Bank of Bibb County (a)        |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                  
|2. Security Bank of Houston County         |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                  
|3. Security Bank of Jones County           |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                  
|4. Security Bank of North Metro            |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                  
|5. Rivoli Bank & Trust                     |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                  
|6. Statutory Trust I                       |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                  
|7. Statutory Trust II                      |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                  
|8. Rivoli Bank and Trust Statutory Trust I |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                  



(a) Fairfield Financial, Inc. is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Security Bank of Bibb County.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         108,664
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  256,209
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,048
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               407,543
<PP&E>                                          48,531
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,728
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 897,115
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          136,618
<BONDS>                                         86,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           966
<OTHER-SE>                                     653,955
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   897,115
<SALES>                                      1,448,629
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,448,629
<CGS>                                        1,111,358
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,111,358
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               266,147
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,862
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,852
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 64,405
<INCOME-TAX>                                    36,463
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,942
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,942
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31


</TABLE>
#### Joseph Hocevar, Appellant, v Honig Industrial Diamond Wheel, Inc., et al., Respondents.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated May 31, 1988, which dismissed his complaint for failure to comply with a preliminary conference order setting forth a schedule for pretrial discovery, and (2) an order of the same court, dated September 16, 1988, which denied his motion to vacate the order dated May 31, 1988.

Ordered that the order dated September 16, 1988, is reversed, without costs or disbursements, the motion to vacate is granted, the order dated May 31, 1988, is vacated, and the plaintiff’s complaint is reinstated on the condition that the plaintiff’s counsel personally pays the sum of $250 to the defendant Honig Industrial Diamond Wheel, Inc., and $250 to the defendant Wil-Brook Realty Corp., within 20 days after *589service upon the plaintiffs counsel of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry; in the event that condition is not complied with, the order dated September 16, 1988, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated May 31, 1988, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as academic in view of the determination of the appeal from the order dated September 16, 1988.

While the Supreme Court accurately observed that the plaintiff had failed to complete depositions and to file a note of issue by the dates set forth in the court’s preliminary conference order, the striking of the complaint constituted an improvident exercise of discretion under the circumstances presented by this case. Inasmuch as the record demonstrates that the plaintiff acted in good faith in conducting discovery, the failure to comply strictly with the terms of the preliminary conference order was due to an oversight and not to willful or contumacious misconduct or dilatory tactics *(see generally, Vierya v Briggs & Stratton Corp.,*166 AD2d 645; *Sawh v Bridges,*120 AD2d 74; *Horowitz v Camp Cedarhurst & Town & Country Day School,*119 AD2d 548), and the defendants suffered no prejudice as a result of the delay, the drastic remedy of dismissal of the complaint was unwarranted *(see, e.g., Bermudez v Laminates Unlimited,*134 AD2d 314; *Croce v Abraham & Straus,*123 AD2d 561; *Ehmer v Modernismo Publs.,*120 AD2d 483). Accordingly, we have imposed an appropriate lesser sanction against the plaintiffs counsel. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#### Jose M. Gomez, Respondent, v Superior Fleet Maintenance Inc., Defendant, and Patrick D. Vitlo, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion granted and amended complaint dismissed as against defendant Vitlo. Memorandum: Plaintiff’s verified amended complaint alleged that he was bitten by a Doberman Pinscher on July 25, 1988 and that the dog was owned and harbored by defendant Superior Fleet Maintenance and/or defendant Vitlo, its corporate secretary. Defendant Vitlo’s affidavit supporting his motion for summary judgment asserted that Superior Fleet Maintenance owned and harbored the dog at a service station and that defendant Vitlo was not at the service station at the time that plaintiff allegedly was bitten. Further, Superior Fleet Maintenance, in its verified answer, admitted to owning and harboring the dog. Plaintiff’s affidavits in opposition assert only conclusions that there are questions of fact concerning whether Vitlo owned and harbored the dog. This is insufficient to raise an issue of fact requiring trial against defendant Vitlo and he is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him *(see, Nidzyn v Stevens,*148 AD2d 592, 593; *Zwinge v Love,*37 AD2d 874; *see also, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Queens County, Le Vine, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sigfredo Taveras, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), rendered December 14, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale *637of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On appeal, the defendant contends that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence because of, *inter alia,*inconsistencies in the testimony of the People’s witnesses. We disagree.

Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

To the extent that the defendant contends that the evidence was not legally sufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that issue is unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Logan,*74 NY2d 859). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt.

Finally, we find that the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80, 83). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
Sanitized ver sion of spectra for Nd C atalyst Stage 1

, and mixed hexanes

TS Number 50GT11
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.09 MB)

Tags:DLA Distribution, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution, DLA Distribution Europe, dla, Defense Logistics Agency

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.25 MB)

Tags:senior enlisted leader, fort belvoir, McNamara Headquarters Complex, Army Command Sgt. Maj. Sultan Muhammad, dla, People and Culture, Defense Logistics Agency

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Exhibit 32.1 Certification of Chief Executive OfficerPursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2017 (the Report) of GSV Capital Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael T. Moe, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ Michael T. MoeName: Michael T. MoeDate:  May 10, 2017
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350)

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015 (the "Report") of Garrison Capital Inc. (the "Registrant"), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joseph Tansey, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the
best of my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------









|/s/  Joseph Tansey | 
|------------------ | 

Joseph Tansey

Chief Executive Officer

November 4, 2015
Exhibit 32.1 - SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



EXHIBIT 32.1

Section 1350 Certifications



I am the Corporate Secretary, Acting Principal
Executive Officer and Acting Principal Financial Officer of IPOWorld, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”). I am delivering
this certificate in connection with the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2014 and filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission (“Form 10-Q”).



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of IPOWorld (the “Company”) certifies
to his knowledge that:

|                                                                                                           |                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1)                                                                                                        | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014 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 that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.                                                
|                                                                                                          
|/s/ Ed Heckerson                                                                                          
|Ed Heckerson                                                                                              
|Corporate Secretary,
        Acting Principal Executive Officer
        Acting Principal Financial Officer
|                                                                                                          
|Date:  May 15, 2014                                                                                       
|