alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### 327 Realty, LLC, Appellant-Respondent, v Nextel of New York, Inc., Doing Business as Sprint Nextel, Respondent-Appellant.

[55 NYS3d 202]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered February 10, 2015, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s and defendant’s respective motions for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiff’s motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

*582Under principles of contract interpretation, where an example of a condition is given, that example defines the type of event that will fulfill that condition *(see Lend Lease [US] Constr. LMB Inc. v Zurich Am. Ins. Co.,*136 AD3d 52, 57 [1st Dept 2015], *affd*28 NY3d 675 [2017]). Hence, where the lease here gave “signal interference” as an example of a “technological” issue that would justify termination of the lease, the lease could only be terminated under that provision by a physical or similar condition that would render the premises unsuited for use as a cell tower. To the extent there may be an ambiguity, it is properly construed against the drafter, defendant *(see Schron v Troutman Sanders LLP,*97 AD3d 87, 93 [1st Dept 2012], *affd*20 NY3d 430 [2013] [noting that contra proferentum is doctrine of last resort that construes an ambiguity against the drafter]).

The leases in the cases relied upon by defendant have terms that are similar, but in material respects different from those here, and thus are unpersuasive *(see e.g. Public Storage v Sprint Corp.,*2015 WL 1057923, 2015 US Dist LEXIS 30204 [CD Cal, Mar. 9, 2015, No. CV 14-2594-GW (PLAx)], *appeal dismissed*9th Cir, Nos. 15-55575, 15-55646 Mar. 30, 2016 [same termination provision, however, liquidated damages included for certain categories of termination]).

Defendant’s reason for termination of the lease did not fit within the type of “technological” issues allowed in the lease, but rather was economic, and therefore, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on its breach of contract claim.

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Feinman, Gische and Kahn, JJ.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1889

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to make certain technical

corrections relating to physicians’ services.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 7 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 22), 1994

Mr. CHAFEE (for himself and Mr. BOREN) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to make

certain technical corrections relating to physicians’ services.

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

3 SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS RELATING TO PHY4 SICIANS’ SERVICES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—

6 (1) UNIQUE IDENTIFIERS.—Paragraph (59) of

7 section 1902(a) of the Social Security Act (42

8 U.S.C. 1396a(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘subsection

9 (v)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (x)’’.
2

•S 1889 IS

1 (2) EXPENDITURES FOR PHYSICIANS’ SERV2 ICES.—Section 1903(i)(12) of the Social Security

3 Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(i)(12)) is amended—

4 (A) by amending clause (i) of subpara5 graph (A) to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(i) is certified in family practice or

7 pediatrics by the medical specialty board

8 recognized by the American Board of Med9 ical Specialties for family practice or pedi10 atrics or is certified in family practice or

11 pediatrics by the medical specialty board

12 recognized by the American Osteopathic

13 Association,’’;

14 (B) by amending clause (i) of subpara15 graph (B) to read as follows:

16 ‘‘(i) is certified in family practice or

17 obstetrics by the medical specialty board

18 recognized by the American Board of Med19 ical Specialties for family practice or ob20 stetrics or is certified in family practice or

21 obstetrics by the medical specialty board

22 recognized by the American Osteopathic

23 Association,’’; and

24 (C) in subparagraphs (A) and (B)—
3

•S 1889 IS

1 (i) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of

2 clause (v);

3 (ii) by redesignating clause (vi) as

4 clause (vii); and

5 (iii) by inserting after clause (v) the

6 following new clause:

7 ‘‘(vi) delivers such services in the

8 emergency department of a hospital par9 ticipating in the State plan approved under

10 this title, or’’.

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

12 subsection (a) shall be effective as if included in the enact13 ment of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.

Æ
# L_2010303EN.01001301.xml

| 19.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 303/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 303/13

---

COUNCIL DECISION 2010/694/CFSP

of 17 November 2010

concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 27 October 2009, the Council adopted Common Position 2009/787/CFSP concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians (1), which provided for an extension of the validity of their national permits for entry into, and stay in, the territory of the Member States referred to in Common Position 2002/400/CFSP of 21 May 2002 concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians (2) for a further period of 12 months. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 27 October 2009, the Council adopted Common Position 2009/787/CFSP concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians (1), which provided for an extension of the validity of their national permits for entry into, and stay in, the territory of the Member States referred to in Common Position 2002/400/CFSP of 21 May 2002 concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians (2) for a further period of 12 months.

| (2) | On the basis of an evaluation of the application of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP, the Council considers it appropriate that the validity of those permits be extended for a further period of 12 months, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of an evaluation of the application of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP, the Council considers it appropriate that the validity of those permits be extended for a further period of 12 months,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Member States referred to in Article 2 of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP shall extend the validity of the national permits for entry and stay granted pursuant to Article 3 of that Common Position for a further period of 12 months.

Article 2

The Council shall evaluate the application of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP within 6 months of the adoption of this Decision.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 17 November 2010.

For the Council

The President

D. REYNDERS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 281, 28.10.2009, p. 6.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 138, 28.5.2002, p. 33.

2

---
#### Burns v. Blair County, Pa.

10/07/2015

140 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Cmwlth., 112 A.3d 690
No. 12-8851.

#### Rivera-Moreno *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report of Siebert Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Muriel F.
Siebert, in my capacity as Chairwoman and President of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|1.
 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 of the Company at the end of the period
 covered by the Report and the results of operations of the Company for the
 period covered by the Report.

| |                                                         |  |                        
| | ------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
| | /s/ Muriel
 F. Siebert                                  |  | Dated:
 August 14, 2007
| |                                                         |  |                        
| | Muriel F.
 Siebert                                      |  |                        
| | Chairwoman
 and President (principal executive officer) |  |                        

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Siebert Financial Corp. and will be
retained by Siebert Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

20

---
|                                                                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                                
|View History:                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                              
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to China (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                              
|                                                                                                              
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to China (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                              

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar   | Apr  | May | Jun   | Jul   | Aug   | Sep   | Oct | Nov   | Dec  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | ----- | ---- | --- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | --- | ----- | -----
|2022                                                                                                                              |     |     |       | 9.38 |     | 13.64 |       | 10.83 | 14.18 |     | 32.69 |      
|2023                                                                                                                              |     |     |       |      |     | 27.75 | 12.04 |       | 8.15  |     |       | 12.58
|2024                                                                                                                              |     |     | 11.34 |      |     |       |       |       |       |     |       |      
|                                                                                                                                 
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
CTRL-a to begin

ESC to stop

6.72 6.72 6.74 6.74 6.73 6.72 6.72 6.72 6.74 6.74 6.73 V 

# 116°F Continuous temperature and flow display6.11 6.13 6.15 6.14 6.14 6.13 6.12 6.14 6.14 6.13 6.13 V 

# 38.3 ft/s Continuous temperature and flow displayMassena West Pretest Anemometer Data 5/7/13



## 47.00743434 Vd Desired velocity in Duct in Method 14 room (ft/sec) 

## 1.416666667 Dn Diameter of a roof monitor nozzle (ft) 

## 1.229 Dd Diameter of a duct at sampling location (ft) 

## 4.423466667 Vm Average velocity of the air stream in roof vents for 36hr period before test (ft/sec) 3.016 Vm Average velocity of the air stream in roof vents for 36 hr period before test (mph)
* To use, enter the new average Vm from anemometers Date: 5-7-13 POM MW and the spreadsheet automatically recalculates a new **A = 0.32** desired duct velocity. **B = 0.27**

**Preliminary adjustment of velocity**

delta P across entire traverse AVG = 0.701

Ts = 552 R Vs = KpCp(sqrt delta P avg) X sqrt (Ts/Ps X Ms) Ps = 30.07 -(0.12/13.6) = 30.06 Ms = 28.84 Vs = (85.49)(0.84)(sqrt 0.701) X sqrt (552 / (30.06)(28.84)) Kp = 85.49 Cp = 0.84 **Vs = 47.98 ft/sec**
|                                                                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                     
|                                                                                                  
|Price of U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports by Vessel to Croatia (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                  
|Price of U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports by Vessel to Croatia (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 6.75   | 7.91   | 11.76  | 6.65   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### Subhan Ghaznavi et al., Respondents, v Ditmas Management Corp. et al., Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 366]

—In an action to re-

cover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), entered March 12, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability finding them 100% at fault in the happening of the accident and a separate jury verdict on the issue of damages finding that the infant plaintiff sustained damages in the principal sum of $500,000 for future pain and suffering, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants’ contention that the jury’s answers to the interrogatories on damages were inconsistent is unpreserved for appellate review as this issue was not raised before the jury was discharged *(see Barry v Manglass,*55 NY2d 803 [1981]; *Delacruz v Galaxy Elecs.,*300 AD2d 278 [2002]). In any event, the contention is without merit.

The jury’s determination that there was an unsafe condition in the premises which caused the infant plaintiff to have cognitive deficits due to lead poisoning was not against the weight of the evidence *(see Esteves v New York City Hous. Auth.,*266 AD2d 502 [1999]; *Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129 [1985]; *see also Juarez v Wavecrest Mgt. Team,*88 NY2d 628 [1996]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Friedmann, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.
#### Samuel A. Jenkins, Appellant, v Patrick C. Murtagh, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[51 NYS3d 883]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered May 13, 2016, which granted the motion of defendant Patrick C. Murtagh for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to plaintiff’s inability to meet the serious injury threshold of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Defendant submitted, inter alia, plaintiff’s medical records, including a CT scan performed about five months before the accident which found multiple bulging discs and a possible herniated disc, and a report of his chiropractor that found range of motion within normal limits one month after the accident *(see Cattouse v Smith,*146 AD3d 670 [1st Dept 2017]).

*483In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether limitations found by his expert three years after the accident were causally related to the accident, in light of the preexisting conditions shown in plaintiff’s medical records (see *Rivera v Fernandez & Ulloa Auto Group,*123 AD3d 509 [1st Dept 2014], *affd*25 NY3d 1222 [2015]; *Alvarez v NYLL Mgt. Ltd.,*120 AD3d 1043, 1044 [1st Dept 2014], *affd*24 NY3d 1191 [2015]). Plaintiff’s expert did not explain why the alleged limitations were attributable to the accident, as opposed to the preexisting conditions (see *Kamara v Ajlan,*107 AD3d 575, 576 [1st Dept 2013]). Furthermore, the expert’s opinion as to causation is speculative, because he failed to reconcile his findings with the earlier full range of motion findings by plaintiff’s chiropractor (see *Colon v Torres,*106 AD3d 458 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.
BuildingaDefensibleCaseDEvidence:Whatisit?EvidenceDTheprocessbywhichanymatteroffactmaybeprovedordisprovedDAnyiformationthathelpsestablishthetruthofthefactinissueLaws

of Evidence D Rules used
to determine what evidence

is to be admitted. D What weight

is to be given

to the admitted evidence. Types

of Evidence- Real Types

of. Evidence

- Testimonial

2Types

of Evidence- Documentary E-Mail-—are

you protected?DYoure-mailmaybetomorrow’sheadlineDKeepe-mailconciseandfactuallycorrectCAvoidbeing“chatty” Types

of Evidence- Demonstrative 

# J7tc\Hurdles

for admissibility: jI Authenticity l Relevance Foundation Types

of Evidence

- Judicially Noted J Credibility

of Evidence C CorroboraUon O Crethbiuty 0 In

a position

to know O bias O Motive O Admission

of wrongdoing Evidence: What’s

all the fuss about?

4What

to collect? o it depends... O What’s the issue? • Law, rule or regulation. 0 What’s relevant? • SDmething
that tends

to proveJdisprove

the matter

in dispute. C Evidence must: • pertain

to

a fact

in question • tend
to make the existence

of the fact either more

or less probable than would

be the case without
the evidence/information 0 Carefully 0 Steps for collecting: I Conditions

and surroundings I Location
and time I Describe

it I Relationship

of item to others What’s relevant? How do you collect evidence?Chain, chain, chain...
E1 Chain

o custody: Show what you got Show how you got

it • Show what you did with It “Freezing” Evidence• The Case File D How do you store information? D Provides

a means

of organizing. D Stores

air information

for the case. D Keeps the entire investigation intact. D Preserves evidence • notes • documents • photos

6PassingontheInformationCYourCaseFflepreservescollectedinformation•Recordsmaybereviewed.•Recordsmaybepresented.‘.wJ,•Toshowafacility’s,LW’compliance.?5’.-.Howmuchevidenceisenough?WhatProofisNeeded?BurdensofProofDUfeSituations:•Hunch•Inferences—theprocessofreasoningbasedon“evidence”toaconclusion•Assumption—toassumeistobelievesomethingistruewithoutproof•ConclusionProsand-Cons?D 100
%
= Complete, undisputed evidence. D Beyond

a reasonable doubt. El Clear and convincing. C Preponderance. ci =NoEvidence. Evidence

& the Burden

of Proof Burden

of Proof... Criminal Law: • Hunch • Suspicion • Probable Cause R Beyond

a Reasonable Doubt Burden

of Proof... D Civil (Administrative)

Law: • Hunch • Reason

to believe S Clear and convincing; preponderance

of the evidence.

8Whatevidencewouldyoucollect?CNursinghomeregisterednursegivesprescriptionsleepaidtoresidentwithoutdoctor’sorder.Whatevidencewouldyoucollect?C.ResidentfallsinaCBRF.Rightankleswellsimmediately.DirectorofNursescallsdoctortwodaysafterfall.Whatevidencewouldyoucollect?CDaycareprovider,usingopenhand,slapsheadofcryinginfantwhilefouryearoldchildobserves.What evidence would you collect? 0 Employee

of residential facility takes coat
of resident over noon hour, leaves building
and drives away wearing coat. Returns

at end of noon hour. Questions?

10
No. 12-8663.

#### Samuel S. *v.*West Virginia.

Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari denied.