alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### State vs. Van Stralen.

Criminal Law. *Effect of repealing statute without saving clause.*

Ch. 340 of 1876 repealed sees. 30 and 31, ch. 165, R. S. 1858, and imposed a greater penalty for the offense therein defined; and no penalty can now be inflicted for official embezzlement within the sections so repealed, though committed before the repealing act toot effect. *State v. Campbell,*44 Wis., 529.

CEETIFIED from the Second County Court of *Brown*County.

The case is stated in the opinion.

The cause was submitted on the brief of *J. C. Neville*and *Geo. Greene*for the state, and that of *Eudcl ds Wigman*for the defendant.

Etah, O. J.

The judgment of this court in *State v. Campbell,*44 Wis., 529, makes it unnecessary to consider the multitudinous exceptions presented by this record.

The information was preferred against the defendant in 1876, for embezzlement committed by him, as county treasurer, previous to that year, under sections 30, 31, ch. 165, E. S. of 1858. The defendant was tried and found guilty. He then alleged exceptions which were allowed by the court below, and the record comes here before judgment under sec. 7, ch. 180, E. S. of 1858.

In *State v. Campbell,*in which the controlling facts were precisely similar, it was held by this court that ch. 340 of *4381876 repealed secs. 30 and 31 of ch. 165, R. S. 1858; and that therefore, because ch. 340 of 1876 imposes a greater penalty for the offense than sec. 31 of ch. 165, R. S. 3858, no punishment can be now lawfully inflicted for official embezzlement within the sections of the revised statutes, committed before ch. 340 of 1876 took effect in January, 1878. That case governs this; and so this defendant must escape punishment for want of a saving clause in the statute of 1876.

*By the Ooivrt.*— The exceptions are, therefore, so far sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         507,892
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,959,194
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,427,991
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,229,395
<PP&E>                                       3,488,586
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,224,972
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,637,398
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,214
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,432,719
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,224,972
<SALES>                                     12,485,961
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,485,961
<CGS>                                        5,716,156
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,716,156
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,726,692
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (814,636)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (879,337)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (879,337)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (879,337)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.44)

</TABLE>
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Arc Communications Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 as of
and for the periods covered in the Report.

/s/ Aaron Dobrinsky
-------------------------------
    Aaron Dobrinsky
    Chief Executive Officer
    Arc Communications Inc.

May 28, 2004

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part
of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to ARC Communications Inc. and will be retained by ARC Communications
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
ROBERT N. STURDIVANT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-3605

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 17, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Michael C. Overstreet, Judge.

Robert N. Sturdivant, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

LEWIS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
# C_2014465EN.01000501.xml

| 24.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 465/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 465/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7470 — Schibsted/Telenor/SoBazaar JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 465/05)

On 18 December 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7470. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7470. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2015152EN.01000201.xml

| 8.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

7 May 2015

(2015/C 152/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1305 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,72 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4637 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,74250 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2951 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0343 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3275 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,405 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 304,56 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0461 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4353 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,0332 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4186 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3645 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7642 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5108 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5049 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 234,03 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,5617 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,0129 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5740 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 853,95 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0671 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,551 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 57,0550 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,967 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,4218 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,3362 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,5279 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1305

JPY

Japanese yen

134,72

DKK

Danish krone

7,4637

GBP

Pound sterling

0,74250

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2951

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0343

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3275

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,405

HUF

Hungarian forint

304,56

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0461

RON

Romanian leu

4,4353

TRY

Turkish lira

3,0332

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4186

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3645

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7642

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5108

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5049

KRW

South Korean won

1 234,03

ZAR

South African rand

13,5617

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,0129

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5740

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 853,95

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0671

PHP

Philippine peso

50,551

RUB

Russian rouble

57,0550

THB

Thai baht

37,967

BRL

Brazilian real

3,4218

MXN

Mexican peso

17,3362

INR

Indian rupee

72,5279

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2014137EN.01000101.xml

| 7.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7200 — Lenovo/IBM x86 Server Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 137/01

On 29 April 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7200. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7200. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
#### Cottrill vs. Cramer and others.

Appeal to Supreme Court. *On what papers an appeal from an order will he heard.*

1. An appeal from an order founded on specified papers gives this court no authority to review the order on different papers.

2. Thus, on appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial *founded oil the .judge's minutes,*this court cannot reverse the order on the ground that the special verdict on which the judgment is based, is inconsistent with itself.

APPEAL from the County Court of *Milwaukee*County.

For the plaintiff and appellant, there was a brief by *Alfred L.*Cary, and oral argument by *J. P. C. Cottrill.*

*J. J.*Orton, for respondents.

RyAN, C. J.

After verdict and at the same term, the appellant moved for a new trial upon the minutes of the judge of the court below. And this appeal is from an order denying that motion. But the bill of exceptions does not contain the *489minutes of the judge on whicli the motion was made. It contains only the special verdict. And the argument of the appellant in this court is, that the verdict is inconsistent with itself, and that therefore anew trial should be granted.

The court is thus asked to consider an essentially different motion from that denied by the order from which the appeal is taken. That is not within the function of an appellate court. An appeal from an order granting or denying a motion gives jurisdiction to this court to hear only the very motion made in the court below, upon the very premises upon which it was submitted below. A different order may be made here upon the same motion, upon the same papers. But an appeal gives no jurisdiction to entertain here a different motion; or authority to review even the same motion, upon different papers.

*By the Court.*— The appeal is dismissed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied.
# C_2015166EN.01000101.xml

| 21.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

20 May 2015

(2015/C 166/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1118 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,43 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4598 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,71570 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2927 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0429 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3975 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,330 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 306,50 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0653 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4458 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8845 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4070 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3578 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6193 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5143 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4851 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 218,25 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,2281 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,8974 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5338 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 609,91 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0180 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 49,579 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 55,4715 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,334 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,3759 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,8716 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,9265 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1118

JPY

Japanese yen

134,43

DKK

Danish krone

7,4598

GBP

Pound sterling

0,71570

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2927

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0429

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3975

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,330

HUF

Hungarian forint

306,50

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0653

RON

Romanian leu

4,4458

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8845

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4070

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3578

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6193

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5143

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4851

KRW

South Korean won

1 218,25

ZAR

South African rand

13,2281

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,8974

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5338

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 609,91

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0180

PHP

Philippine peso

49,579

RUB

Russian rouble

55,4715

THB

Thai baht

37,334

BRL

Brazilian real

3,3759

MXN

Mexican peso

16,8716

INR

Indian rupee

70,9265

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
******************************************************

The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the

beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will

be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the

date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative

date for the beginning of all time periods for filing

postopinion motions and petitions for certification is

the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion.

In no event will any such motions be accepted before

the ‘‘officially released’’ date.

All opinions are subject to modification and technical

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the

event of discrepancies between the electronic version

of an opinion and the print version appearing in the

Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

latest print version is to be considered authoritative.

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying

the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official

Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service

and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes

of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of

the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal

Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.

******************************************************
HOLSTON v. NEW HAVEN POLICE DEPT.—CONCURRENCE

ZARELLA, J., concurring. I concur in the judgment of

this court and join the majority opinion for the reasons

stated therein. My conclusion would be different, however, if we had been asked to revisit the basis for our

decision in Ciarlelli v. Hamden, 299 Conn. 265, 8 A.3d

1093 (2010); see id., 301 (Zarella, J., concurring); and

if I was convinced that the reliance interests were not

sufficient to require this court to follow that precedent.

See State v. Peeler, 321 Conn. 375, 469, 140 A.3d 811

(2016) (Zarella, J., dissenting).
FINAL 

'i'OP SBefti'i' 8tdj@I .. SB0flRPfX W'OBMtiIElf .. l:f.S. ms Olffi?f 

SYBJECT ~1JMBER 

EO 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

USCIB: l'J/369 

Subject: 

Additional Item (E) (Not on Agenda) for the 89th 

Meeting of USCIB, held on l4 August 1953. 

Publication in Fress of Classified Comm.uni.cations 

Intelligence Information. 

GENERAL SAMFORD said that he had noted/the Ex:ecutive Secretary's memorandum. on this subject (USCIB 13/360) 1/lmd, with ref'erence to the 

several newspaper articles in question, aaid that he had been more 

concerned about the revelations by Joe .Alsop than by the others.\ He 

expressed bis opinion that certain of'/the information contained in 

ilsop's article could only have come/f'rom. OCMINT sources, and asked 

if any other mel!l.bers.had comments on these disclosures. 

-camesoey rom • e e a ema er 

"-=w-=a=-=s=--=s':c"r'....---.:-::e7 ng· pursued, and said that the applicability of Public 

Law 513 to cases of this kind was also being explored. In the 

ensuing- discussion it was brought out that it would probably be 

undesirable to apply Public Law 513 in thic:1 instance. It was generally 

agrGed that control of these leaks is a matter for administrative 

action 'Within the member Departments and Agencies. 

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (General Cabell) suggested that the matter be 

left in the hands of the EKecutive Secretary, as Security Officer for 

the Board. 

There followed a brief discussion on the newspaper articles in 

question, and possible means of insuring the cooperation of newspaper 

columnists in maintaining security in such matters. 

The members approved the Acting Chairman's suggestion that the 

problem should be left with the Executive Secretary f'or recommendation 

as to further action. 

The meeting adjourned at 1555. 

USCIB: l'J/369 -9-

TOP SECRET GANOE 

eclassified and approved for release 

y NSA on 05-12-2014 pursuant to 

.0. 13526
EXHIBIT 21.1

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF DELTA FINANCIAL CORPORATION




       NAME                                      STATE OF INCORPORATION
------------------                                   ---------------
Delta Funding Corporation...........................     New York
Fidelity Mortgage Inc...............................     Delaware
DFC Financial Corporation...........................     Delaware
DF Special Holdings Corporation.....................     Delaware
Continental Property Management Corp................     New York
DFC 1999-A Corp.....................................     Delaware
DFC Receivables Company, L.L.C. ....................     Delaware
DFC 2000-B Corp. ...................................     Delaware
DFC Financial of Canada Limited ....................     Ontario, Canada
DFC Funding of Canada Limited.......................     Ontario, Canada
DFC Servicing Receivables Corp  ....................     Delaware
DFC Servicing Receivables Company, L.L.C. ..........     Delaware
DFC Holding-A Corp. ................................     Delaware
DFC Funding Corporation ............................     Delaware
DFC Acceptance Corporation .........................     Delaware
Renaissance Mortgage Acceptance Corp. ..............     Delaware
Renaissance NIM Trust 2001-A .......................     Delaware
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2374 

To impose sanctions with respect to the Supreme Leader of the Islamic 

Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Sayyud Ebrahim RaisolSadati, who was elected president of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 

the 2021 presidential election. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 15, 2021 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. COTTON, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, 

Mr. ROUNDS, Mr. BRAUN, Mr. HAGERTY, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. CORNYN, 

Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mr. YOUNG, and Mr. RUBIO) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To impose sanctions with respect to the Supreme Leader 

of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 

and Sayyud Ebrahim Raisol-Sadati, who was elected 

president of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the 2021 

presidential election. 

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


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2374 IS

1 SECTION 1. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO 

2 OFFICIALS OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF 

3 IRAN. 

4 The President shall impose the sanctions described 

5 in section 1263(b) of the Global Magnitsky Human Rights 

6 Accountability Act (Subtitle F of title XII of Public Law 

7 114–328; 22 U.S.C. 2656 note) with respect to the Su8 preme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah 

9 Ali Khamenei, and Sayyud Ebrahim Raisol-Sadati, who 

10 was elected president of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 

11 the 2021 presidential election. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**523 CA 15-01272**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND NEMOYER, JJ.

THE SHORE WINDS, LLC, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
SEBASTIAN CACCAMO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

ELLIOTT STERN CALABRESE, LLP, ROCHESTER (MICHAEL T. ANSALDI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
HARTER SECREST & EMERY LLP, ROCHESTER (CANDACE M. CURRAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an amended order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Ann Marie Taddeo, J.), entered October 3, 2014. The amended order and judgment granted the motion of plaintiff for a money judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215. It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see CPLR 5511; Lauer v City of Buffalo, 53 AD3d 213, 216; Johnson v McFadden Ford , 278 AD2d 907, 907).

Entered: June 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court