alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Rosemary A. Izzo, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 841]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 15, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment as a checkout manager with a discount store without good cause. The record establishes that for the 10-year duration of her employment with the discount store, she had worked the same 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift. When her schedule was suddenly changed without any advance notice, claimant left her employment offering no particular reason for being unable to accept the new schedule other than it did not coincide with her availability and the unilateral schedule change was against company policy. Absent a compelling reason, an employee’s preference for a particular work schedule does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see *Matter of Marcheschi [Commissioner of Labor],*306 AD2d 613, 614 [2003]; *Matter of Partlow [Sweeney],*234 AD2d 846, 847 [1996]). Although claimant indicated for the first time on appeal to the Board that her limited availability was due to the need to care for her mentally ill adult child, she failed to bring this to the attention of the employer prior to resigning (see *Matter of Mullen [Commissioner of Labor],*301 AD2d 936, 936 [2003]; *Matter of Chereshnev [Commissioner of Labor],*296 AD2d 804, 805 [2002]) nor did she disclose it to the local unemployment insurance office or at the hearing. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Larry D. Key, certify that:

         1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of GBC
Bancorp, Inc.;

         2.       Based on my knowledge, this annual 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
annual report;

         3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this annual 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 annual 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we
have:

                  a)       designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

                  b)       evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this
annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

                  c)       presented in this annual report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

         5.       The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and
the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):

                  a)       all significant deficiencies in the design or
operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal
controls; and

                  b)       any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls; and

         6.       The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated
in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: March 29, 2004

/s/ Larry D. Key
-------------------------------------
Larry D. Key
Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Thomas and Agnes Carvel Foundation, Respondent-Appellant. Pamela Carvel, Appellant-Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 391]

— In a proceeding, inter alia, to enforce the terms of a reciprocal agreement and to enjoin the conveyance of certain real properties, Pamela Carvel appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, S.), dated June 21, 2001, as granted those branches of the motion of Thomas and Agnes Carvel Foundation which were to dismiss the second counterclaim and the second, ninth, thirteenth, fourteenth, sixteenth, and eighteenth affirmative defenses asserted in her answer and Thomas and Agnes Carvel Foundation cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from (1) stated portions of a decision of the same court dated March 20, 2001, and (2) so much of the order dated June 21, 2001, as denied those branches of its motion which were to dismiss the first counterclaim and the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, twelfth, and twentieth affirmative defenses asserted in the answer. Justice McGinity has been substituted for the late Justice O’Brien *(see*22 NYCRR 670.1 [c]).

Ordered that the cross appeal from the decision is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision *(see Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp.,*100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal and cross appeal from the order dated June 21, 2001, are dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal and cross appeal from the order dated June 21, 2001, must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of a decree on July 8, 2002 *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal and cross appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the decree *(see*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; *Matter of Carvel,*2 AD3d 847 [2003] [decided herewith]). Krausman, J.P., McGinity, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.
# L_2010256DE.01003401.xml

| 30.9.2010 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 256/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2010

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 256/34

---

Berichtigung des Beschlusses 2010/433/EU der Kommission vom 5. August 2010 zur Änderung der Entscheidung 2004/558/EG zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie 64/432/EWG des Rates hinsichtlich ergänzender Garantien im Handel mit Rindern innerhalb der Union in Bezug auf die infektiöse bovine Rhinotracheitis

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 205 vom 6. August 2010
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 205 vom 6. August 2010

Seite 8, Artikel 1 Nummer 2 Buchstabe b:

anstatt:

| „f) | die in Buchstabe d genannten Tiere einem serologischen Test auf Antikörper gegen das gE-Glycoprotein des BHV1 oder das gesamte BHV1 anhand einer Blutprobe, die binnen 21 bis 28 Tagen vor Ankunft in dem in Buchstabe e genannten Betrieb genommen wurde, unterzogen wurden, wobei“ |
| --- | --- |

„f)

die in Buchstabe d genannten Tiere einem serologischen Test auf Antikörper gegen das gE-Glycoprotein des BHV1 oder das gesamte BHV1 anhand einer Blutprobe, die binnen 21 bis 28 Tagen vor Ankunft in dem in Buchstabe e genannten Betrieb genommen wurde, unterzogen wurden, wobei“

muss es heißen:

| „f) | die in Buchstabe d genannten Tiere einem serologischen Test auf Antikörper gegen das gE-Glycoprotein des BHV1 oder das gesamte BHV1 anhand einer Blutprobe, die binnen 21 bis 28 Tagen nach Ankunft in dem in Buchstabe e genannten Betrieb genommen wurde, unterzogen wurden, wobei“. |
| --- | --- |

„f)

die in Buchstabe d genannten Tiere einem serologischen Test auf Antikörper gegen das gE-Glycoprotein des BHV1 oder das gesamte BHV1 anhand einer Blutprobe, die binnen 21 bis 28 Tagen nach Ankunft in dem in Buchstabe e genannten Betrieb genommen wurde, unterzogen wurden, wobei“.

---
# L_2011332EN.01002601.xml

| 15.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 332/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 332/26

---

Corrigendum to Implementing Regulation of the Council (EU) No 400/2010 of 26 April 2010 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 on imports of steel ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in the People’s Republic of China to imports of steel ropes and cables consigned from the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not, and terminating the investigation in respect of imports consigned from Malaysia

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 117 of 11 May 2010
  )

On page 11, Article 1, table, second column ‘Company’, fourth entry:

for:

‘
  Cosmo Wire Ltd, 447-1, Koyeon-Ri, Woong Chon-Myon Ulju-Kun, Ulsan
  ’,

read:

‘
  Cosmo Wire Ltd, 4-10, Koyeon-Ri, Woong Chon-Myon Ulju-Kun, Ulsan
  ’.

---
EXHIBIT 12
  MERRILL
    LYNCH & CO., INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND
    COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
    (dollars in millions)
  Successor Company


Predecessor CompanyThree Months Ended


Nine Months EndedSeptember 30,


September 30,


Year Ended


Years Ended2010


2010


December 31,


December 26,


December 28,


December 29,


December 30,(Unaudited)


(Unaudited)


2009


2008


2007


2006


2005Pre-tax earnings / (loss)(a)


$
(879
)


$
884



$
2,218



$
(45,438
)


$
(13,723
)


$
9,313



$
6,335Add: Fixed charges (excluding capitalized interest and preferred
    security dividend requirements of subsidiaries)



1,884




6,127




11,063




29,641




51,683




35,719




21,764Pre-tax earnings / (loss) before fixed charges


$
1,005



$
7,011



$
13,281



$
(15,797
)


$
37,960



$
45,032



$
28,099Fixed charges:Interest


$
1,813



$
5,906



$
10,773



$
29,349



$
51,425



$
35,499



$
21,549Other(b)



71




221




290




292




258




220




215Total fixed charges


$
1,884



$
6,127



$
11,063



$
29,641



$
51,683



$
35,719



$
21,764Preferred stock dividend requirements



96




197




126




4,356




401




259




99Total combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends


$
1,980



$
6,324



$
11,189



$
33,997



$
52,084



$
35,978



$
21,863Ratio of earnings to fixed charges




*



1.14




1.20





*




*



1.26




1.29Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred stock
    dividends




*



1.11




1.19





*




*



1.25




1.29   On January 1, 2009, Merrill Lynch (the Predecessor
    Company) was acquired by Bank of America through the
    merger of a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America with and
    into ML & Co. with ML & Co. (the
    Successor Company) continuing as the surviving
    corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America.
    The Predecessor Company and Successor Company periods have been
    separated by a vertical line above to highlight the fact that
    the financial information for such periods has been prepared
    under two different cost bases of accounting.
   (a)
    
    Excludes undistributed earnings
    (loss) from equity investments and earnings from discontinued
    operations.(b)
    
    Other fixed charges consist of
    the interest factor in rentals, amortization of debt issuance
    costs and preferred security dividend requirements of
    subsidiaries.*
    
    The earnings for the three
    months ended September 30, 2010 and for year-end 2008 and
    2007 were inadequate to cover total fixed charges and total
    fixed charges and preferred stock dividends. The coverage
    deficiencies for total fixed charges for the three months ended
    September 30, 2010 and for the years 2008 and 2007 were
    $879, $45,438 and $13,723, respectively. The coverage
    deficiencies for total fixed charges and preferred stock
    dividends for the three months ended September 30, 2010 and
    for the years 2008 and 2007 were $975, $49,794 and $14,124,
    respectively.
|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                          
|                                                                                       
|No chart available.                                                                    
|No chart available.                                                                    
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|Oregon Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 0      |        | 0      | 0      |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
No. 12-7831.

#### Davis *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
# L_2010273EN.01000501.xml

| 19.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 273/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 273/5

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 930/2010

of 18 October 2010

entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed [Ovčí salašnícky údený syr (TSG)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 9(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, Slovakia’s application to register the name ‘Ovčí salašnícky údený syr’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, Slovakia’s application to register the name ‘Ovčí salašnícky údený syr’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no objection under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no objection under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register.

| (3) | Protection as referred to in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has not been requested, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Protection as referred to in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has not been requested,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 October 2010.

For the Commission

The President

José Manuel BARROSO

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 305, 16.12.2009, p. 27.

2

---

ANNEX

Products listed in Annex I to the Treaty, intended for human consumption:

Class 1.3.   Cheeses

SLOVAKIA

Ovčí salašnícky údený syr (TSG)

---
#### In the Matter of Jennifer Tabb, Petitioner, v New York State Office of Court Administration et al., Respondents.

[49 NYS3d 623]

Determination of respondents, dated September 15, 2015, as amended on February 11, 2016, which denied petitioner’s appeal of her placement on involuntary leave from her position as a court officer, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Barbara Jaffe, J.], entered on or about December 22, 2015), dismissed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner was incapacitated from employment is supported by substantial evidence *(see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180-182 [1978]), including the testimony and report of a forensic psychiatrist.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Renwick, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Grady Williams, Respondent, v Cynthia L. Tucker, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 229]

*1367Appeal from an amended order of Family Court, Erie County (Townsend, J., for Battle, J.), entered February 26, 2002, which awarded sole custody of the parties’ child to petitioner and visitation to respondent.

It is hereby ordered that the amended order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an amended order that modified the parties’ existing custody arrangement by awarding sole custody of the parties’ child to petitioner father following a hearing. Although Family Court erred in failing “to set forth those facts essential to its decision” *(Matter of Graci v Graci, 187*AD2d 970, 971 [1992]), “the record is sufficiently complete for us to make our own findings of fact in the interests of judicial economy and the well-being of the child[ ]” *(Matter of Hilliard v Peroni,*245 AD2d 1107, 1107 [1997]).

“It is well established that alteration of an established custody arrangement will be ordered only upon a showing of a change in circumstances which reflects a real need for change to ensure the best interest of the child” *(Matter of Irwin v Neyland,*213 AD2d 773, 773 [1995]; *see Matter of Ross v Trento,*275 AD2d 972 [2000]). The record establishes that concerns of respondent for the safety of the child prompted her to surrender custody to petitioner voluntarily in September 2000. At that time, respondent was living with her family, including her drug-addicted brother who was in debt to drug dealers, and the drug dealers had come to the home looking for payment. Although the surrender was intended to be temporary, the present petition was filed by petitioner in February 2001, and he alleged therein that the conditions that prompted the surrender had not substantially changed and that it was in the best interests of the child that he have sole custody on a permanent basis. Petitioner, who is an electrician, established at the hearing that the child is thriving in his care. After surrendering custody of the child to petitioner, respondent expressed little interest in seeing the child and has not otherwise been involved in his life. Respondent has numerous health problems and has a very limited income, and thus she has continued to live with her mother. Although her brother no longer resides with them, he visits there frequently. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the court properly modified the existing custody arrangement by awarding sole custody of the child to petitioner. Present— Pine, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
#### Mautner-Glick Corporation et al., Appellants, v Haley Glazer, Respondent.

[48 NYS3d 587]

Order, Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered on or about January 27, 2016, which affirmed an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Peter M. Wended, J.) (the Housing Court), entered on or about November 21, 2013, granting tenant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition in a summary holdover proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners’ threshold argument that tenant waived her right to contest service of the notice of nonrenewable (the *Golub*Notice) because she failed to raise it in her preanswer motion to dismiss is misplaced. Tenant’s defense that she was not properly served with the *Golub*Notice was not a defense based on lack of personal jurisdiction, but on landlords’ failure to comply with a condition precedent to suit *(W54-7 LLC v Schick,*14 Misc 3d 49, 50 [App Term, 1st Dept 2006]). Compliance with *516a statutory notice requirement represents a condition precedent to maintenance of a summary eviction proceeding, and the “burden remains with the landlord to prove that element of its case” *(id.).*Tenant timely raised the objection in her answer and again in her cross motion for summary judgment despite not having raised it in her pre-answer motion *(id.; see*CPLR 3211[e]).

Appellate Term also correctly affirmed the Housing Court’s determination that proper service of the *Golub*Notice was not established at the hearing. In primary residence cases, “the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court’s conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence” *(409-411 Sixth St. LLC v Mogi,*112 AD3d 558, 558 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]). This is particularly true where, as here, the findings of fact “rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses” *(id.*[internal quotation marks omitted]). A fair interpretation of the evidence supported the Housing Court’s determination.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kahn, JJ.