alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GS Plasticos Limitada, Appellant, v Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services, Inc., Respondent.

[52 NYS3d 343]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered July 25, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly dismissed the second amended complaint alleging that defendant tortiously interfered with plaintiff’s contracts with a third party, Kellogg, since there was no breach by Kellogg *(see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney,*88 NY2d 413, 424 [1996]). In particular, the motion court correctly determined that Kellogg had a valid reason for terminating the contracts — namely, mechanical testing failures (see *Saja Music Co. v Sony Music Entertainment,*212 AD2d 370, 370 [1st Dept 1995]). Even if the contracts had been cancelled due to defendant’s incorrect test results regarding arsenic in the toys manufactured by plaintiff, the record contains no evidence that defendant gave false test results with the intention of procuring a breach by Kellogg (see *Lama,*88 NY2d at 424; *Dermot Co., Inc. v 200 Haven Co.,*58 AD3d 497, 497 [1st Dept 2009]). To the contrary, defendant actively attempted to determine the reason why its testing showed high levels of arsenic while other labs’ testing did not, and it informed Kellogg as soon as it determined that its results were wrong.

Plaintiff failed to preserve its argument that defendant’s motion was defective because the motion did not include a copy of defendant’s answer *(see Medina v MSDW 140 Broadway Prop., L.L.C.,*13 AD3d 67, 67-68 [1st Dept 2004]).

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

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.
2017-1732.

#### State v. Mullen.

Summit App. No. 28453, 2017-Ohio-7234. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Fischer, J., dissents.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
|                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                               
|View History:                                                                                
|                                                                                             
|Price of Buffalo, NY Natural Gas Pipeline Exports to Canada (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                             
|                                                                                             
|Price of Buffalo, NY Natural Gas Pipeline Exports to Canada (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                             

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb  | Mar | Apr  | May  | Jun  | Jul  | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ---- | --- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2023                                                                                                                              |     |      |     |      |      | 1.97 | 1.81 |     |     |     |     |    
|2024                                                                                                                              |     | 2.68 |     | 2.21 | 1.40 |      |      |     |     |     |     |    
|                                                                                                                                 
|- = 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
**Exhibit
      10(n)(13)**


AMENDMENT
      NO. 12


TO


ALLTEL
      CORPORATION 401(k) PLAN


(January
      1, 2001 Restatement)





WHEREAS,
      Alltel Corporation (the "Company") maintains the Alltel Corporation 401(k)
      Plan,
      as amended and restated effective January 1, 2001, and as subsequently amended
      (the "Plan"); and




WHEREAS,
      the Company desires further to amend the Plan;




NOW
      THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Company hereby amends the Plan in the
      respects hereinafter set forth:




Effective
      as of July 1, 2006, a new Appendix C is added to the Plan to provide as
      follows:





**APPENDIX
      C**





Notwithstanding
      any terms in the Plan to the contrary, in determining when an Employee who
      satisfies the requirements specified in this Appendix C first completes an
      Hour
      of Service for purposes of Section 10.01(b), the terms of this Appendix C shall
      govern.





In
      determining when an Employee first completes an Hour of Service for purposes
      of
      Section 10.01(b), the Employee's period or periods of employment with an
      employer described in this Appendix C shall be considered if such period or
      periods of employment would have been taken into account under the Plan had
      such
      period or periods of employment been service with a member of the Controlled
      Group. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan or this Appendix C,
      there
      shall be no duplication of service (including hours of service) by reason of
      service (or hours of service) in respect of any single period or
      otherwise.





(a)
            For
                an Employee who was an employee of Amarillo Celltelco or related
                entity
                ("Cellular One of Amarillo") immediately prior to July 1, 2006, and
                became
                an Employee on July 1, 2006, the Employee's period or periods of
                employment with Cellular One of
                Amarillo.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, by its duly authorized officer, has caused this
      Amendment No. 12 to the Alltel Corporation 401(k) Plan (January 1, 2001
      Restatement) to be executed on this 27th day of June, 2006.




ALLTEL
      CORPORATION








By:
      /s/ Scott T.
      Ford


Title:
      President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Ferrara v Peaches Café LLC

4th Dept: 138 AD3d 1391

granted
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 79 (Monday, April 25, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 22862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2011-8775]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Docket No. APHIS-2010-0040]

Florigene Pty., Ltd.; Availability of Petition and Environmental 
Assessment for Determination of Nonregulated Status for Altered Color 
Roses

Correction

    In notice document 2011-8775 appearing on pages 20623-20624 in the 
issue of Wednesday, April 13, 2011 make the following correction:
    On page 20623, in the third column, in the fourth paragraph, in the 
third line from the bottom ``IFD-524-1-4 and IFD-529-1-9'' should read 
``IFD-524[Oslash]1-4 and IFD-529[Oslash]1-9''.

[FR Doc. C1-2011-8775 Filed 4-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
#### In the Matter of Mordechai Ishakis, Respondent, v Lillian Lieberman, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 654]

In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award dated September 27, 2012, Lillian Lieberman appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, *1115Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated July 31, 2015, which, among other things, confirmed the award and determined that one-half of all marital assets of Lillian Lieberman and her husband, debtor Shaya Lieberman, including a residence located on 58th Street in Brooklyn, were subject to execution by the petitioner to recover an unpaid debt in the principal sum of $91,200.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On prior appeals in this proceeding, this Court upheld the Supreme Court’s confirmation of an arbitration award, but reversed a judgment which imposed personal liability on the appellant and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for the entry of a judgment consistent with that court’s amended order confirming the award *(see Matter of Ishakis v Lieberman,*128 AD3d 1066 [2015]). The appellant now challenges the resulting judgment entered by the Supreme Court. We affirm.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the judgment neither imposes personal liability upon her nor is inconsistent with either the terms of the arbitration award, the Supreme Court’s amended order confirming that award, or this Court’s decision and order in the prior appeals. Rather, the judgment clearly recites that the petitioner can seek to recover the debt only from the appellant’s husband’s one-half interest in the marital property he shares with the appellant, including their residence, which is titled only in the appellant’s name. To the extent that the appellant currently challenges the propriety of the underlying arbitration award, that issue was already resolved by this Court’s decision and order in the prior appeals, which is now the law of the case *(see Gliklad v Cherney,*140 AD3d 598, 598 [2016]; *Calabrese Bakeries, Inc. v Rockland Bakery, Inc.,*139 AD3d 1192, 1195 [2016]; *Engel v Eichler,*300 AD2d 622, 623 [2002]).

Similarly unavailing is the appellant’s contention that the entry of the judgment was procedurally improper because it violated the settlement requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.48. Since this Court’s decision and order in the prior appeals did not expressly direct that the judgment be settled on notice, the provisions of 22 NYCRR 202.48 did not apply *(see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Moley,*145 AD3d 970, 972 [2016]; *Pol v. Ashirov,*131 AD3d 523, 524 [2015]; *Shamshovich v Shvartsman,*110 AD3d 975, 977 [2013]; *Matter of Matthew L.,*85 AD3d 917, 918 [2011]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions, and the petitioner’s contention pursuant to CPLR 5701 (a) (1), are without merit.

The parties’ references in their briefs to matters that are dehors the record have not been considered by this Court in its *1116determination of this appeal.

Mastro, J.P., Sgroi, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.
*October 3, 2017*

2017-Ohio-8040.]

2017-0544.

#### Daher v. DeWine.

In Mandamus and Prohibition. Case returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01. Respondents shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days.
#### In the Matter of Alma D.G.-L., Appellant, v Juan C.-P., Respondent.

[58 NYS3d 483]—

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Denise M. Watson, J.), entered December 16, 2016. The order, without a hearing, in effect, denied the mother’s motion for the issuance of an order, inter alia, making specific findings so as to enable the subject child to petition the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for special immigrant juvenile status pursuant to 8 USC § 1101 (a) (27) (J).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Dutchess County, for a hearing and a determination thereafter of the mother’s motion.

The parties have a child in common. On September 1, 2015, the mother filed a petition pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 for sole custody of the child. In a corrected order dated October 22, 2015, the Family Court awarded the mother sole legal and residential custody of the child.

On August 1, 2016, the mother moved for an order declaring that the child is dependent on the Family Court and making specific findings that the child is unmarried and under 21 years of age, that reunification with the father is not viable due to abandonment, and that it would not be in the child’s best interests to be returned to Mexico, her previous country of *517nationality and last habitual residence, so as to enable the child to petition the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for special immigrant juvenile status (hereinafter SIJS) pursuant to 8 USC § 1101 (a) (27) (J). In an order entered December 16, 2016, the court determined the mother’s motion by stating that “the petition is dismissed due to failure to state cause of action.” The mother appeals.

The Family Court erred in denying the mother’s motion— which the court mistakenly denominated a “petition” — without a hearing. In her affidavit in support of the motion, the mother averred that the child was under 21 and unmarried; that the Family Court had awarded the mother sole custody of the child; that the father had abandoned the child after her birth, never provided support, and never had a relationship with the child; and that it was not in the child’s best interests to return to Mexico. The record is insufficient to provide a basis for a determination of the mother’s motion as to whether reunification with the father is not viable due to abandonment. Accordingly, we reverse the order and remit the matter to the Family Court, Dutchess County, for a hearing and a determination thereafter of the motion *(see*8 USC § 1101 [a] [27] [J] [ii]; 8 CFR 204.11 [c] [6]; *Matter of Jimenez v Perez,*144 AD3d 1036, 1037 [2016]).

Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Barros and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
# L_2011140EN.01005401.xml

| 27.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 140/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 140/54

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 19 May 2011

appointing one Danish member of the Committee of the Regions

(2011/311/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Danish Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.

| (2) | One member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Henning JENSEN, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

One member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Henning JENSEN,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is hereby reappointed to the Committee of the Regions as a member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:

| — | Mr Henning JENSEN, Byrådsmedlem (change of mandate). |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Henning JENSEN, Byrådsmedlem (change of mandate).

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 19 May 2011.

For the Council

The President

BALOG Z.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.

2

---
RS D5XR212Y 16 March, 2010

David A. Hoyng Aviation Safety Inspector Federal Aviation Administration Flight Standard District Office 5225S Loop 289, Suite 122 Lubbock, Tx 79424-1319

Dear Mr. Hoyng, Reference My request Letter Dated 15 Mar 10 and your e-mail dated 3/16/2010 9:04 AM. I am requesting Deviation from 14 CFR, Part 145, §145.103, (b). DBP has a pending contract to paint two B777 for United Airlines beginning approximately 20 Apr 10. Please refer to the attached housing diagram for the B777. It involves nosing the aircraft into our Bay 1, the largest of our bays, for paint processes then backing the aircraft in for paint processes on the remainder of the fuselage and tail sections. Bay 1, is being temporarily modified to acco mmodate all the paint processes, for the B777, pending a permanent modification which is presently in works, reference attached drawings.

Due to economic downturn several customers have significantly scaled back on paint schedules forcing us to seek other work in order to preserve employment. This contract will enable us to maintain employment for approximately 40 people for an additional two to 3 months. It also allows us to provide a valuable customer the se rvices they need. Additi onally, this provides revenue to this economica lly depressed region. Although a portion of the aircraft will remain outdoors all paint procedur es will be conducted in a controlled environment (within the Hangar) at all times, much like a nose dock, widely used in the industry elsewhere. The area of the fusela ge that transitions to outdoors will be protected by a heavy duty tarpaulin curtain that is semi-permanently attached to each door closest to the fuselage and wraps around the fuselage. The sl iding permanent hangar doors will be braced to prevent inadvertent roll toward s the fuselage, see attached. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Plea se feel free to contact me with any questions. Best Regards,

Richard Hammer Chief Inspector Dean Baldwin Painting LP Phone 575 347-4168 Cell 575 420-1520 FAX 575 347-2244 richardh@deanbaldwinpainting.com
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory Yates, Appellant.

[60 NYS3d 817]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered January 13, 2015, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Moskowitz, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Thierry E. Lew, Appellant, v Dorothy M. Lew, Respondent.

[58 NYS3d 145]—

*521Appeal by the father from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Robert Lopresti, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated June 27, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, denied the father’s petition to enforce the visitation provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce and his separate petition to enforce an order dated September 13, 2013, granting him therapeutic supervised visitation with the parties’ child.

Ordered that the order dated June 27, 2016, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The parties were divorced by a judgment of divorce entered on November 24, 2009, which awarded custody of the parties’ child to the mother, and supervised visitation to the father. The Family Court subsequently issued an order dated September 13, 2013, granting the father therapeutic supervised visitation with the child. The father filed a petition to enforce the visitation provisions of the judgment of divorce, and a separate petition to enforce the order dated September 13, 2013. After a hearing, the Family Court denied the petitions. The father appeals.

“ £[T]he [Family] Court has broad discretion in fashioning a remedy in matters of custody and visitation, with the paramount concern being the best interests of the child’ ” *(Cervera v Bressler,*109 AD3d 780, 781 [2013], quoting *Matter of Schick v Schick,*72 AD3d 1100, 1101 [2010]; *see Matter of Pignataro v Davis,*8 AD3d 487, 488-489 [2004]; *Matter of Plaza v Plaza,*305 AD2d 607 [2003]). “Absent extraordinary circumstances, where visitation would be detrimental to the child’s well-being, a noncustodial parent has a right to reasonable visitation privileges” *(Matter of Rodriguez v Silva,*121 AD3d 794, 795 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Pollack v Pollack,*56 AD3d 637 [2008]; *Twersky v Twersky,*103 AD2d 775 [1984]). Where, as here, the court has conducted an evidentiary hearing on the issue of visitation, its findings must be accorded great weight, and its visitation determination will not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 173 [1982]; *Matter of Felty v Felty,*108 AD3d 705, 707 [2013]).

Here, the Family Court’s determination that enforcement of the visitation provisions of the parties’judgment of divorce and the order dated September 13, 2013, would be detrimental to the child’s well-being and contrary to her best interests has a sound and substantial basis in the record and we decline to disturb it *(see Matter of VanBuren v Assenza,*110 AD3d 1284, *5221284-1285 [2013]; *Cervera v Bressler,*109 AD3d at 781; *Matter of Mohabir v Singh,*78 AD3d 1056, 1056-1057 [2010]; *Matter of Johnson v Williams,*59 AD3d 445 [2009]; *Matter of Razo v Leyva,*3 AD3d 571, 571-572 [2004]).

The father’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

Austin, J.P., Hinds-Radix, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.
162 A.3d 288

#### IN THE MATTER OF ANDREY V. ZIELYK, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 026891986)

June 15, 2017

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 16-165, concluding on the record certified to the Board pursuant to *Rule*1:20-4(f)(default by respondent), that ANDREY V. ZIELYK, formerly of PARSIPPANY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 198 6, and who has been *332temporarily suspended from the practice of law since February 10, 2015, should be censured for violating *RPC*8.1(b)(failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities) and *RPC*8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ANDREY V. ZIELYK is hereby censured; and it is further

ORDERED that ANDREY V. ZIELYK remain suspended from practice pursuant to the Orders of the Court filed February 10, 2015, and September 24, 2015, and until further Order; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
No. 09-1115.

#### Erik Sammis, et al., Petitioners v. Unseld Nance, Sr., Individually and as the Natural Father and Next Friend of Unseld Nance, Jr., et al.

562 U.S. 827, 131 S. Ct. 69,

178 L. Ed. 2d 23,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6505.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 586 F.3d 604.
2017-1654.

#### State ex rel. Menton v. Sloan.

In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

O’Neill, J., not participating.