alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Judith Ziman-Scheuer, Respondent, v Golden Touch Transportation of NY, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[52 NYS3d 360]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered June 13, 2016, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff contends that she slipped and fell while exiting a charter bus because of an oily condition on the bottom step, the uneven condition of the steps, the lack of an adequate handrail, and/or the failure of defendant driver to assist her.

Assuming that plaintiff adequately identified the cause of her fall as an oily substance, defendant driver testified that he saw no such condition before or after plaintiff fell, and there was no evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether such a condition existed and, if so, whether it existed for a sufficient time for defendants to remedy it *(see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836 [1986]; *Rodriguez v New York City Tr. Auth.,*118 AD3d 618 [1st Dept 2014]).

In opposition to defendants’ showing through their expert’s opinion that the stairs and handrails were safe, plaintiff’s expert failed to raised an issue of fact, since the expert’s opinion rested on statutes, codes, regulations, and industry standards that applied to buildings, as opposed to buses *(see Johnson v 301 Holdings, LLC,*89 AD3d 550, 551 [1st Dept 2011]; *Azzaro*
      *636
      *v Super 8 Motels, Inc.,*62 AD3d 525 [1st Dept 2009]). Furthermore, any claim that the handrail was defective because it did not extend to the last step, is unavailing since that step was not accessible unless the door was opened, and the handrail could not extend beyond closed doors of the bus (see *Hyman v Queens County Bancorp, Inc.,*3 NY3d 743, 745 [2004]).

Defendant driver had no duty to assist plaintiff off the bus. Although the internal rules of defendant corporation required such assistance, internal rules that “go beyond the standard of ordinary care . . . cannot serve as a basis for imposing liability” *(Gilson v Metropolitan Opera,*5 NY3d 574, 577 [2005]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.
#### Excelsior 57th Corp., Appellant, v Excel Associates, Respondent.

[55 NYS3d 184]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur Engoron, J.), entered August 22, 2016, in favor of defendant, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered March 2, 2016, which, after a nonjury trial, declared that plaintiff was obligated to pay for structural repairs to a parking garage leased to defendant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly declined to entertain expert evidence proffered by plaintiff seeking to establish that the routing and filling of cracks in the concrete slabs located in the parking garage constituted non-structural repairs that, under the parties’ lease, were defendant’s responsibility. This testimony was precluded by the doctrine of law of the case because the motion court, and this Court on a prior appeal (126 AD3d 479 [1st Dept 2015]), had previously found that these repairs constituted structural repairs of the garage, and were therefore plaintiff’s responsibility *(People v Evans,*94 NY2d 499 [2000]; *Martin v City of Cohoes,*37 NY2d 162, 165 [1975]).

Based on the foregoing, it is unnecessary for us to reach plaintiff’s remaining contention.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 408-409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-152]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 510, 520, and 558


New Animal Drugs and Related Products; Change of Sponsor; 
Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a 
document that appeared in the Federal Register of October 23, 1997 (62 
FR 55159). The document amended the animal drug regulations to reflect 
a change of sponsor for three new animal drug applications (NADA's) and 
three abbreviated new animal drug applications (ANADA's) from Wade-
Jones Co., Inc., and its manufacturing subsidiary Arkansas Micro 
Specialties,

[[Page 409]]

Inc., to Alpharma Inc. The document was published with two inadvertent 
errors. This document corrects those errors.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 6, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith O'Haro, Center for Veterinary 
Medicine (HFV-6), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., 
Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-3664.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 97-28011, appearing on page 
55159, in the Federal Register of Thursday, October 23, 1997, the 
following corrections are made:
    On page 55159, in the third column, in the SUMMARY paragraph, in 
lines five and six, the phrase ``three abbreviated new animal drug 
applications (ANADA's)'' is corrected to read ``two abbreviated new 
animal drug applications (ANADA's)'' and on the same page, the table is 
corrected by removing the last entry.

    Dated: December 22, 1997.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 98-152 Filed 1-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
164 A.3d 391

#### MUN JAE KIM, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. LEADING INSURANCE GROUP AND LEADING INSURANCE SERVICES, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

March 16, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied, with costs.
No. 12-8640.

#### Calvo *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
# Excess boots may brighten holidays for homeless

/ Published Aug. 20, 2020

Almost 200 pairs of boots began making their way to help the homeless July 28 when they were received at the Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services site at Warner Robins, Georgia.                A man in need tries on a pair of military boots from the Hosea On the Move program Aug. 18 after the group received 189 pairs from DLA Disposition Services at Warner Robins, Georgia.                            Trying them on                            A man in need tries on a pair of military boots from the Hosea On the Move program Aug. 18 after the group received 189 pairs from DLA Disposition Services at Warner Robins, Georgia.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Hosea Williams IIIVIRIN: 200818-D-D0441-001

Property Disposal Specialist LaVette Rush said the 189 pair of combat boots donated went to help Hosea Helps Feed the Hungry and Homeless, which also works with another non-profit group named Yes We Can. Some of the boots were handed out soon after on the streets, but Rush also learned from the customer that many of them will be distributed during future holiday dinners for the homeless.

“I have been told that they usually don’t have a lot of shoes for the men during the dinners, and that the amount that they received is amazing and much needed,” Rush said. “It was amazing knowing that those boots would be going to people who need and appreciate the smallest things.”

Hosea Williams III said the donation pickup was his group’s first time, and “our experience was great.”

He said the staff member who distributes clothing at the group’s Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Martin Luther King dinners wanted boots for her clients.

“Men usually don’t donate shoes, and if they do they are usually all worn out,” Williams said. “When she saw the boots, she was so happy. She did, however, allow me to take some for our Hosea On the Move homeless outreach.”

Williams said those boots were distributed around Atlanta at bridges, a homeless park and passed some out to people in need.
EXHIBIT 13.2




Section 906 Certification by Principal Executive Officer




In connection with the Annual Report of Elbit Imaging Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ran Shtarkman, co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:




(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and




(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:  June 6, 2011




By:
/s/ Ran ShtarkmanName:    Ran ShtarkmanTitle:      Co-Chief Executive Officer
#### Sarbo, Matter of, v Tri-Valley Plumbing & Heating

3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1219

denied
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fernando Nunez, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 210]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert A. Sackett, J.), rendered April 8, 2015, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

Any error by the court in precluding the defense from cross-examining a police detective, who was part of the buy and bust team, regarding an unrelated federal civil complaint in which she was named as a defendant, was harmless because “there was no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted if defendant had been permitted to impeach” the officer at issue *(People v Smith,*27 NY3d 652, 665 [2016]). There was overwhelming evidence that defendant possessed drugs with the intent to sell them, even without the limited circumstantial evidence supplied by the detective at issue.

The court’s discussion during voir dire regarding the applicable standard of proof in the grand jury, sparked by a prospective juror’s statement that he had been a grand juror, should have been avoided *(see People v Melendez,*140 AD3d 421, 423-424 [1st Dept 2016]). However, the brief comment, intended to *445emphasize the different and higher burden of proof at a trial, was harmless, and in any event it did not warrant the drastic remedy of a mistrial, which was the only remedy requested.

Defendant’s general objection failed to preserve his present challenge to certain allegedly prejudicial background testimony about how buy and bust operations are conducted *(see People v Tevaha,*84 NY2d 879, 881 [1994]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal.

The court did not err in permitting an undercover officer to testify anonymously, using his shield number rather than his name. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the court did not simply grant the People’s application on the ground that it was unlikely that any impeachment material would be found regarding the officer, who apparently regularly testified using his shield number. Instead, the court properly applied the analysis prescribed in *People v Stanard*(42 NY2d 74 [1977], *cert denied*434 US 986 [1977]) and *People v Waver*(3 NY3d 748 [2004]). Nor did the court err in refusing defendant’s request that the court use the officer’s real name to conduct an in camera search for impeachment material in various databases, where the defense did not show that such records were reasonably likely to be found, especially considering the officer’s long time undercover service *(see People v Gissendanner,*48 NY2d 543 [1979]; *People v Valentine,*160 AD2d 325 [1st Dept 1990], *lv denied*76 NY2d 797 [1990]).

Finally, the court did not unduly curtail defense counsel’s cross-examination of the undercover officer when he was recalled to the stand for a very limited purpose.

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Gesmer and Oing, JJ.
# DLA Installation Management Susquehanna’s Prepareathon topic #2: Severe Weather – Thunderstorms and Tornadoes 

/ Published April 12, 2021
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Susquehanna Security & Emergency Services team initiated a preparedness program for the month of April. Deemed “April Prepareathon,” the Emergency Management team will provide a new topic each week this month to assist employees with preparing for disasters and other emergencies. 

This week’s topic covers severe weather, notably, thunderstorms and tornadoes.   

“Prepareathon was developed to motivate everyone to act and to prepare for disasters that may affect their communities,” Installation Emergency Manager Rick Zucchero said, in an all-hands email message sent out to installation employees.  

Zucchero shared the following information:
      - Severe thunderstorms can produce dangerous wind and/or large hail which can result in property damage, power outages, injuries and even death.

- A **HIGH WIND WATCH** is issued when sustained winds of 40 miles per hour (mph) or higher for one hour or more OR wind gusts of 58 mph or higher for any duration are **POSSIBLE**- A **HIGH WIND WARNING** is issued when winds of 40 mph or higher for one hour or more OR wind gusts of 58 mph or higher for any duration are **EXPECTED**
      - If there is a  HIGH WIND WARNING  take shelter at the nearest Shelter-In-Place location. If you are not at work, seek shelter in a sturdy structure.  
      - Tornadoes can produce winds that can exceed 200 mph! Flying debris is very dangerous and is most often the cause of injuries or death.

- A tornado **WATCH** indicates that conditions are ideal, and a tornado is possible - A tornado **WARNING** indicates that a tornado is imminent and to take shelter 
      - If a tornado  WARNING  is issued, seek shelter in the nearest SIP location. If not at work, seek shelter in a basement or interior room away from windows on the lowest floor and cover your head.
      - Every tornado, despite the size, should be seen as life-threatening.

More information about severe weather planning can be found at www.ready.gov.
# Employee Spotlight: Devon LeCointe

/ Published Nov. 16, 2020
RICHMOND, Va., 
*Employee spotlight regularly features outstanding non-supervisory personnel from throughout the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation and other DLA employees on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia. Organizational directors may submit names of employees they wish to feature in this column to DLA Aviation Public Affairs. For more information, call (804) 279-3139.*

Name: Devon LeCointe  

Organization: DLA at Cherry Point, NC 

Years of Service: 19 years

What is your job title, and what do you do, specifically? I am a customer support specialist. In this capacity, I process customer orders, manage backorders, provide customers with order status updates, perform expedited and follow-up actions, as well as research alternative sources.Have you had a mentor that helped you grow in your career? If so who, and how did they help? I have had many mentors throughout my time with Defense Logistics Agency, from Gerald Satterwhite, Eric Neumann, Delbert Walton, Nicole Smith and Clyde Shaeffer to name a few. Their teachings have been monumental in my career growth.

Where do you see yourself five years from now?  In the next five years, I see myself still working for DLA providing support to the warfighter.

If you could speak directly to the warfighters you support, what would you tell them? If I could speak directly to the warfighters, I would thank them for everything that they do for us and for this country. ¬¬¬¬

What was your first job? My first job was as a bagger at a grocery store in the Virgin Islands.

What’s the most thrilling/adventurous thing you have ever done? The most thrilling thing I have ever done was jumping off a waterfall while stationed in Okinawa, Japan.What type of music do you most enjoy? My favorite type of music would be Reggae. Listening to Reggae always puts me in a more relaxed state of mind.What is your proudest accomplishment? My proudest accomplishment would be graduating from Craven Community College in New Bern, North Carolina, with an Associate Degree in Psychology.

What is/are your favorite book(s), television show(s) or movie(s)? My all-time favorite movies would be the entire Stars Wars series.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 27, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-239

Lower Tribunal No. 16-32472

________________

Jacqueline Archange,

Appellant,

vs.

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mavel Ruiz, 

Judge.

Max A. Goldfarb, for appellant.

Kubicki Draper, P.A., and Barbara E. Fox, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See Perrin v. De Soleil S. Beach Ass’n, 305 So. 3d 598, 599 

(Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“[O]rder enforcing settlement based on nonjury finding 

on disputed evidence is reviewed on appeal for competent, substantial 

evidence because lower court is in best position to evaluate and weigh 

testimony and evidence based upon its observation of bearing, demeanor, 

and credibility of witnesses.” (citing Fratangelo v. Coosemans, 264 So. 3d 

1079, 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“When the trial court conducts a full 

evidentiary hearing on a motion to enforce settlement, ‘[t]he findings of the 

trial court, as the trier of fact, come to this court clothed with a presumption 

of correctness, and where there is substantial competent evidence to sustain 

the actions of the trial court, the appellate court cannot substitute its opinion 

on the evidence but rather must indulge every fact and inference in support 

of the trial court’s judgment, which is the equivalent of a jury verdict.’” 

(quoting Smiley v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 704 So. 2d 204, 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 

1998))))).
No. 09-11144.

#### Earl D. Burgess, Petitioner v. Gene M. Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 863, 131 S. Ct. 147,

178 L. Ed. 2d 88,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6717.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 366 Fed. Appx. 467.
# Clothing and Textiles team provides cloth face masks to Army recruits 

/ Published March 5, 2021
PHILADELPHIA, 
Army recruits at training centers across the country are receiving cloth face masks during initial uniform issuance as of March 1 thanks to Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support.

DLA Troop Support Clothing and Textiles provided nearly 16,000 operational camouflage pattern masks to recruit training centers at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri; Fort Sill, Oklahoma; Fort Jackson, South Carolina; and Fort Benning, Georgia, in time for the first issuance.

Each recruit will receive two OCP masks until black- and coyote-colored masks are available in June, said Diane Douse, a C&T customer account specialist on the Army recruit team. Recruits will then receive one mask in each color.

Douse is manually processing orders for the interim OCP masks until the others are available.

“Normally, RTC [supply systems] automatically replenish and generate orders based on anticipated demand, current stock on hand, etcetera,” said Timothy Schmidt, Army recruit training team supervisor.

C&T’s planning, technical, contracting and customer support teams worked together to meet the Army’s expedited distribution timeline, Douse said.

“That’s typical of setting any new item up; we all have to do our part,” Douse said.

The group also met the Army’s specifications for protection and color standards of the masks, C&T Product Specialist Sean O’Connell said.

The masks meet Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance by including two layers of washable, breathable fabric.

“It will also fit against the face nicely due to the design,” he added.

Schmidt said C&T will continue providing masks for the foreseeable future for the nearly 8,000 Army recruits who receive initial equipment each month.
### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 14

- 00250

- CR

AZAN MUHAMMAD JANNAH , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1883398).

TO THE COUNTY CRIMIN AL COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF HARRIS COUNTY,

GREETINGS :

Before this Court, on the 2nd day of April 2015, the case upon appeal to revise or

to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on February 12, 2014. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the

Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below

for observance.

Judgment rendered April 2, 2015.Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle. Opinion delivered by Justice Huddle.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

June 12, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13939]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service


Extension of Post-Sale Evaluation Period for Central Gulf of 
Mexico Lease Sale 169

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice to extend post-sale evaluation period for Central Gulf 
of Mexico Lease Sale 169.

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

SUMMARY: This notice extends by 30 days, the post-sale evaluation 
period for Central Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 169. Minerals Management 
Service (MMS) will complete the evaluation of all bids received in this 
sale by July 15, 1998. This action is necessary due to the unusually 
high number of bids received in response to this lease sale.

DATES: The post-sale evaluation period ends on July 15, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gary L. Lore, Regional Supervisor, Resource Evaluation, Gulf of Mexico 
Region, telephone (504) 736-2710.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Central Gulf of Mexico Sale 169, held 
March 18, 1998, MMS received 1,188 bids on 794 tracts, 512 of which 
passed to a second phase required for detailed evaluations. This 
continued aggressive bidding activity is, in part, due to the enactment 
of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (Pub. L. 
104-58) but is also influenced by other factors, such as the high 
number of quality prospects on recently expired unexplored tracts in 
newly established deepwater hydrocarbon plays and by the unprecedented 
cost-saving technological advances related to hydrocarbon development 
and production in the Gulf of Mexico's deepwater environment. 
Consequently, MMS is unable to conduct and complete a comprehensive 
evaluation and bid review process within the scheduled 90 days, i.e., 
by June 15, 1998. Under provisions of Sec. 256.47(e)(2), MMS is 
extending the bid evaluation period until July 15, 1997.

    Dated: May 19, 1998.
Chris C. Oynes,
Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 98-13939 Filed 5-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-M