alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cooperative Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A., “Rabobank International,” New York Branch, Appellant, v Atradius Credit Insurance N.V. et al., Respondents.

[51 NYS3d 63]

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered on or about October 23, 2015, and on or about November 24, 2015, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The complaint fails to allege facts that would establish a special relationship in support of the causes of action for negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and breach of fiduciary duty, separate from the parties’ arm’s-length contractual relationship under the insurance policy *(see e.g. Kobre v United Jewish Appeal-Fedn. of Jewish Philanthropies of N.Y., Inc.,*32 AD3d 218, 223 [1st Dept 2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 715 [2006]; *Batas v Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,*281 AD2d 260, 264 [1st Dept 2001]; *Jansen v Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y.,*79 NY2d 867 [1992]). Defendants’ publicly available marketing materials and links to its website do not create a special relationship *(see Batas,*281 AD2d 264; *cf. Kimmell v Schaefer,*89 NY2d 257, 264-265 [1996] [defendants found to owe duty of care to plaintiffs where they provided projections for distribution to plaintiffs in particular]). Neither do the marketing materials’ general assertions of defendants’ experience and expertise in the area of credit risk management give rise to a special relationship *(Gaidon v Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,**417255 AD2d 101, 102 [1st Dept 1998], *mod on other grounds*94 NY2d 330 [1999]).

In support of the fraud cause of action, the complaint fails to allege facts that would establish reasonable reliance *(see Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP,*12 NY3d 553, 559 [2009]). Plaintiff agreed, under Article 7B of the insurance policy, to exercise due care and diligence with respect to the underlying receivables transaction. Moreover, the documentary evidence submitted establishes that defendants’ credit limit, decisions and endorsements were merely prerequisites to coverage, and reflected the maximum credit limit that defendants were willing to insure.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.
#### Catherine Moraetis, Respondent, v Robert S. Evans et al., Appellants.

[54 NYS3d 1]

*404Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered January 11, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants’ CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion to dismiss plaintiff’s gender discrimination claims, unanimously modified, on the law, to dismiss the claim under the New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296), and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court erred in determining that issues of fact exist regarding whether, under the single employer doctrine, the employees of Spring Hill Farm should be counted toward the four-person threshold necessary to state a claim under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws. Under that doctrine, liability for certain violations of employment law may be imposed on entities that are a part of a “single enterprise” *(Arculeo v On-Site Sales & Mktg., LLC,*425 F3d 193, 198 [2d Cir 2005]). The doctrine “has been limited to situations where the plaintiff’s employer is a wholly-owned subsidiary, or where the plaintiff’s employment is subcontracted by one employer to another . . . entity” *(Conde v Sisley Cosmetics USA, Inc.,*2012 WL 1883508, *5, 2012 US Dist LEXIS 72726, *15 [SD NY, May 23, 2012, No. 11 Civ 4010 (RJS)] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see e.g. Cook v Arrowsmith Shelburne, Inc.,*69 F3d 1235, 1240-1241 [2d Cir 1995]).

Here, neither situation exists, as plaintiff’s employer, Edward R Evans Foundation (the Foundation) was a parent corporation that temporarily owned and controlled its subsidiary, Spring Hill Farm. Further, plaintiff does not allege that Spring Hill Farm made any discriminatory employment decisions, or any decisions at all in connection with her employment. Accordingly, there is no issue of fact as to whether Spring Hill Farm, which employs six full-time employees, and the Foundation, which employs only two full-time employees, can be considered part of a single “employer” for the purposes of satisfying the minimum four-person-in-the-employ requirement set forth in the New York State and New York City Human Rights Law (Executive Law §§ 292 [5]; 296; Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 8-102 [5]; 8-107).

Nevertheless, issues of fact remain whether plaintiff has stated a claim under the New York City Human Rights Law on the basis that three members of the Foundation’s Scientific Advisory Board were paid by the Foundation and worked for the Foundation, and thus can be considered independent contractors and/or employees of the Foundation for the purposes of *405satisfying the four-person threshold *(see Pugliese v Actin Biomed LLC,*2011 NY Slip Op 30912[U], *10-11 [Sup Ct, NY County 2011]). This theory does not apply to the claim under the State Human Rights Law, which, unlike the City law, does not provide that independent contractors count towards the four-person threshold.

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.
|                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                      
|View History:                                                                                       
|                                                                                                    
|No chart available.                                                                                 
|No chart available.                                                                                 
|                                                                                                    
|                                                                                                    
|Price of Elba Island, GA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Colombia (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                    

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2022                                                                                                                              | W   |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |    
|2023                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | W   | W   |     |    
|- = 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
DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania’s Executive Officer retires
 
  By Diana Dawa, DLA Distribution Public Affairs
  Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania’s executive officer, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Rex B. Burman, is retiring after 20 years of military service.    During his retirement ceremony held here Jan. 9, Burman was presented the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, his retirement certificate, and the coveted DDSP Pallet award, recognizing his accomplishments while as the DDSP XO for the past two years.    For her continued support, his wife, Jenny Burman, received a certificate of appreciation during the ceremony.    In his remarks, Burman listed what he considers his top four achievements in his military service.    “NAS Keflavik – our billeting division won 5-star accreditation and the Admiral Zumwalt Award for Excellence in Bachelor Housing Management.  While serving on the USS John Paul Jones -- we passed Supply Management Certification.  Working in the Navy Office of Legislative Affairs I had the opportunity to meet influential people and military leaders, as well as the privilege in participating in the Commander in Chief’s Inauguration Ceremony. Finally, serving as the Executive Officer at DDSP.  I truly wanted to fulfill my role as a supply officer, and what better place to do that than at the largest distribution center in the department of defense,” said Burman.    Burman found that his biggest challenge during his military career was taking care of people, especially the young enlisted sailors who are out on their own for the first time in their lives.    He also noted the main differences in the military from when he first began his career to current status is the evolvement of technology.    “Twenty years ago I would have to go see a personnel or an administrative specialist to sign paperwork or see my leave and earnings statement and other documents.  Now I don’t have to leave my desk or drive to another building as virtually everything can be done on a computer.”  Burman noted there are so many good people that have supported him during his Navy service.    “A few in particular are my skipper on USS John Paul Jones, Capt. (retired) Jim Housinger, and retired Supply Corps Captains Dan Allen, Tim Colyer, and Harry Davis.  I especially have to thank my wife Jenny and our kids Jenelle and Ridge for their support during this journey,” said Burman.    Army Col. March Callis, commander, DDSP, presided over Burman’s retirement Ceremony and provided remarks.    “I can personally attest to the fantastic job he did for us while serving on the DDSP team.  I’ve come to know Rex as someone of extremely high character, a tempered military officer who possesses impressive interpersonal tact. He is a caring individual committed to the mission and those performing it.”    As for Burman’s immediate future after retiring?    “Enjoy civilian life”, Burman said, adding, “I’ll give the civilian sector a try.  But I will enjoy as much time with my family as I can.  When I was a kid, I assembled a lot of model kits.  So I think I will resume that hobby again.”
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 41692 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

SANTOS VELA

- GARCIA

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:13

- CR

- 314

- 1

Before PRADO, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Santos Vela

- Garcia

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d
229 (5th Cir. 2011). Vela

- Garcia h a s not filed a respo nse. We have reviewed
counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We
concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 4, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-41692 Document: 00513623557 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2016No. 15

- 41692

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw
is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-41692 Document: 00513623557 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2016
|                                                                                                
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                  
|View History:                                                                                   
|                                                                                                
|Price of Cove Point, MD Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to China (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                
|                                                                                                
|Price of Cove Point, MD Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to China (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | -----
|2020                                                                                                                              |     |     |     | W   |     |     | W   |     |     |     | W   |      
|2021                                                                                                                              | W   |     | W   |     | W   |     | W   | W   |     |     | W   |      
|2022                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | 11.51
|- = 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
#### Claudine Brown, Respondent, v Garda CL Atlantic, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[55 NYS3d 26]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lizbeth Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about May 2, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Garda CL Atlantic, Inc.’s (defendant) motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s negligence claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff bank teller seeks damages in connection with personal injuries allegedly sustained when she tripped over boxes of quarters delivered to the bank by defendant.

Defendant is a delivery company and did not own, lease, or *543control the premises on which the accident occurred. “[A] party who enters into a contract to render services may be said to have assumed a duty of care—and thus be potentially liable in tort—to third persons” where, as relevant here, it “launche[s] a force or instrument of harm,” such as by “negligently creat[ing] or exacerbating] a dangerous condition” *(Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs.,*98 NY2d 136, 140-143 [2002]; *see also Gordon v Pitney Bowes Mgt. Servs., Inc.,*94 AD3d 813, 813-814 [2d Dept 2012]; *Sainval-Brice v All Seasons Indus. Servs., Inc.,*85 AD3d 1004, 1004 [2d Dept 2011]). Here, summary judgment was properly denied because defendant failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that it did not create a dangerous condition by placing the boxes of coins where plaintiff was likely to trip over them.

Contrary to defendant’s assertion, it is not dispositive that the delivery was complete and the boxes transferred to the bank’s custody and control at the time of the accident, which occurred only a few minutes later *(see Allen v Turyali Fast Food, Inc.,*51 AD3d 468, 469 [1st Dept 2008]; *cf. Armstrong v Ogden Allied Facility Mgt. Corp.,*281 AD2d 317, 318 [1st Dept 2001]).

It is also not clear as a matter of law that the boxes were both “open and obvious” and not “inherently dangerous” *(see Powers v 31 E 31 LLC,*123 AD3d 421, 422 [1st Dept 2014]). “[T]he question of whether a condition is open and obvious is generally a jury question” *(Westbrook v WR Activities-Cabrera Mkts.,*5 AD3d 69, 72 [1st Dept 2004]) and this Court has previously found summary judgment unwarranted under very similar circumstances *(see Furment v Ziad Food Corp.,*104 AD3d 562, 563 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.
Exhibit 31-15
**FORM 10-Q CERTIFICATION**
I, Anthony F. Earley, Jr., certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 of MichiganConsolidated Gas Company; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b.  (Intentionally omitted)  c.  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  d.  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a.  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b.  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.     /s/ ANTHONY F. EARLEY, JR.   Date: May 10, 2005     Anthony F. Earley, Jr.    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of    Michigan Consolidated Gas Company
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14077]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Meeting; Notice of Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, May 28, 1998.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Requests from Two (2) Federal Credit Unions to Convert to 
Community Charters.
    2. Request for a Corporate Federal Credit Union for a Field of 
Membership Amendment.

RECESS: 11:00 a.m.

TIME AND DATE: 11:30 a.m., Thursday, May 28, 1998.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Administrative Action under Part 704 of NCUA's Rules and 
Regulations. Closed pursuant to exemption (8).
    2. Corporate Credit Union Risk Rating system (CCURRS). Closed 
pursuant to exemption (8).
    3. Administrative Action under Section 206 of the Federal Credit 
Union Act. Closed pursuant to exemptions (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8).
    4. Six (6) Personnel Actions. Closed pursuant to exemptions (2) and 
(6).
    5. Human Resources Delegations of Authority. Closed pursuant to 
exemptions (2) and (6).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board, 
Telephone (703) 518-6304.
Becky Baker,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-14077 Filed 5-22-98; 9:31 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
#### Com. v. Villanueva 46

07/27/2016

296 MAL (2016)

46

. Justice MUNDY did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 145 A.3d 771
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 93 (Thursday, May 14, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 26827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13052]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION

Sunshine Act Meeting

Notice of Previously Held Meeting
TIME AND DATE: 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 12, 1998.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS CONSIDERED: 
    1. Personnel Matter Related to the OPM Report. Closed pursuant to 
exemptions (2) and (6).
    2. Personnel Action. Closed pursuant to exemptions (2) and (6).
    The Board voted unanimously that Agency business required that a 
meeting be held with less than the usual seven days advance notice, 
that it be closed to the public, and that earlier announcement of this 
was not possible.
    The Board voted unanimously to close the meeting under the 
exemptions stated above. Deputy General Counsel James Engel certified 
that the meeting could be closed under those exemptions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board, 
Telephone (703) 518-6304.
Becky Baker,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-13052 Filed 5-12-98; 3:46 pm]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
```
No. 12-8383.

#### Adams *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.