alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
164 A.3d 407

#### JOHN BARRY, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

March 23, 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001027343
<NAME>                        ML Pfd. Funding I, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-27-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-17-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-27-1996
<CASH>                                         8805
<SECURITIES>                                   3476024
<RECEIVABLES>                                  330836589
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4266418
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 334321418
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          671356
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    283505200
<COMMON>                                       50144862
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   334321418
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               785818
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                785818
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            785818
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   785818
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jarod Skinner, Appellant.

[63 NYS3d 239]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), rendered October 29, 2013, unanimously affirmed.

Application by defendant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the *439judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.

Concur— Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Andrias, Gische, Kern and Singh, JJ.
EX-10.10.B



 







EXHIBIT 10.10(b)




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of this
31st day of March, 2006, by and between Mylan Laboratories Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (the
“Company”), and                                           (“Executive”).



     WHEREAS, the Company and Executive are party to that certain Executive Employment Agreement
dated as of                      (the “Agreement”), pursuant to which the Company agrees to employ
Executive, and Executive accepts such employment, as more particularly described in the Agreement;
and



     WHEREAS, as permitted by Section 15 of the Agreement, the Company and Executive desire to
amend the Agreement, upon the terms and conditions set forth herein;



     NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:



     1. The references to “March 31, 2006” in Section 2 (Effective Date; Term of Employment),
Section 8(c) (Termination Without Cause) and Section 8(e) (Extension or Renewal) of the Agreement
are hereby amended to read “March 31, 2008” in each instance.



     2. (a) The parties acknowledge and agree that this Amendment is an integral part of the
Agreement. Notwithstanding any provision of the Agreement to the contrary, in the event of any
conflict between this Amendment and the Agreement or any part of either of them, the terms of this
Amendment shall control.



          (b) Except as expressly set forth herein, the terms and conditions of the Agreement are and
shall remain in full force and effect.




          (c) The Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, sets forth the entire understanding of the
parties with respect to the subject matter thereof and hereof.




          (d) This Amendment shall be governed by, interpreted under and construed in accordance with
the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.




          (e) This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an
original and all of which shall constitute one and the same document.




[Signature page follows]




 









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed and delivered as of the day and year
first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	MYLAN LABORATORIES INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:	 	 	 
	 

	 	Title:	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EXECUTIVE:
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 






2
159 A.3d 1283

#### IN THE MATTER OF CHRISTOPHER M. MANGANELLO, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 019821998)

May 19, 2017

ORDER

This matter have been duly presented pursuant to *Rule*1:20-10(b), following a granting of a motion for discipline by consent in DRB 16-382 of CHRISTOPHER M. MANGANELLO of PIT-MAN, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1998;

And the District IV Ethics Committee and respondent having signed a stipulation of discipline by consent in which it was agreed *117that respondent violated *RPC*1.3 (lack of diligence), *RPC*1.4(c)(failure to explain the matter to allow the client to make informed decisions about the representation), *RPC*1.5(b)(failure to memorialize the rate or basis of the fee), *RPC*1.16(d)(failure to return the client’s file), *RPC*3.2 (failure to expedite litigation), and *RPC*8.4(c)(conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation);

And the parties having agreed that respondent’s conduct violated *RPC*1.3, *RPC*1.4(c), *RPC*1.5(b), *RPC*1.16(d), *RPC*3.2, and *RPC*8.4(c), and that said conduct warrants a censure or such lesser discipline as the Board deems appropriate;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined to dismiss the stipulated *RPC*3.2 violation, finding that there was no litigation and that the charge is reserved for attorneys who attempt to impede the progress of matters already before the Court;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined that a censure is the appropriate discipline for respondent’s unethical conduct and having granted the motion for discipline by consent in District Docket No. VI-2015-0054E;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having submitted the record of the proceedings to the Clerk of the Supreme Court for the entry of an order of discipline in accordance with *Rule*1:20-16(e);

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that CHRISTOPHER M. MANGANELLO of PITTMAN is hereby censured; 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.
#### Cushman & Wakefield of Connecticut, Inc., Respondent, v Access Private Duty Services at HJDOI, Inc., Doing Business as Access Healthcare Services, et al., Appellants.

[60 NYS3d 826]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered September 25, 2016, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment in plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $190,023.65, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff and defendants entered into an exclusive broker’s agreement for the period of February 16, 2011 to December 31, 2011. Under the agreement, defendants agreed to refer all inquiries or offerings regarding a lease or purchase of property, regardless of the source, to plaintiff. It also provided that all negotiations would be conducted or supervised by plaintiff, subject to defendants’ review and final approval. It is undisputed that defendants’ principal, Louise Weadock, entered into direct negotiations to lease a property with the property’s landlord, SG Chappaqua B, LLC, in September 2011. It is also undisputed that she failed to involve plaintiff in such negotiations, and ultimately signed a lease on defendants’ behalf in January 2012.

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its breach of contract claim. Plaintiff submitted the agreement and an affidavit by plaintiff’s em*448ployee who was involved in the transaction, Joshua Goldman, who averred that plaintiff performed its brokerage duties under the agreement, defendants failed to refer its lease negotiations with SG Chappaqua to plaintiff, and as a result plaintiff lost its commission *(see Clearmont Prop., LLC v Eisner,*58 AD3d 1052, 1055 [3d Dept 2009]; *Morris v 702 E. Fifth St. HDFC,*46 AD3d 478, 478 [1st Dept 2007]). Plaintiff also established its lost commission as proximate and certain damages that flowed directly from defendants’ breach *(see Bi-Economy Mkt., Inc. v Harleysville Ins. Co. of N.Y.,*10 NY3d 187, 192 [2008]; *Fruition, Inc. v Rhoda Lee, Inc., 1*AD3d 124, 125 [1st Dept 2003]). Plaintiff submitted evidence of the standard schedule of brokerage commissions for Westchester County, and, applying such standard, calculated that the damages for the lost commission were $190,023.65. While defendants assert that this calculation was speculative, plaintiff submitted evidence that SG Chappaqua and plaintiff had previous interactions and had agreed upon the standard schedule of brokerage commissions for Westchester County. SG Chappaqua’s representative also testified at his deposition that, had he known that plaintiff was defendants’ exclusive broker, SG Chappaqua would have paid the $190,023.65 to plaintiff.

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Webber, Oing and Moulton, JJ.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 95-50589 Summary Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KATHERINE HENSLER,

Defendant-Appellee.

_______________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-95-CA-304

_______________________________________________________________ April 30, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Katherine Hensler appeals the district court’s denial of her

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate her sentence. She contends that

the district court erred by determining that Hensler could not

allege her argument of insufficient e vidence to support her

conviction. Hensler unsuccessfully raised the issue of

insufficient evidence to support her conviction in her direct

appeal. U nited States v. Hensler

, No. 93-8850, slip op. at 3-5

(5th Cir. Aug. 8, 1994) (unpublished). Because this issue wasNo. 95-50589 - 2 -

-2- raised and disposed of on direct appeal, it cannot be considered in

Hensler’s § 2255 motion. U ni ted States v. Kalish , 780 F.2d 506,

508 (5th Cir. 1986), cert. denied , 476 U.S. 1118 (1986).

Hensler also attempts to raise, for the first time on appeal,

several issues, which she alleges are constitutional in nature.

This court will not consider issues, such as these, that are not

purely legal questions and that w ould not result in manifest

injustice if not considered. S ee Varnado v. Lynaugh

, 920 F.2d 320,

321 (5t h Cir. 1991). Hensler’s appeal is without merit and is

DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Because H ensler has failed to heed our previous warning to

avoid filing and pursuing frivolous appeals, Hensler is SANCTIONED

$100, which Hensler must pay to the clerk of this court prior to

filing any further appeals in this court.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
Order entered February 10, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 01030 - CV SANJAY BHARDWAJ, Appellant V. ANUPAMA PATHAK, Appellee On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court C ause No. 429 - 53882 - 2013 

### O RDER We DENY appellant’s January 27, 2015 motion for leave to file an oversize reply brief. We STRIKE the reply brief filed by appellant on January 27, 2015. On the Court’s own motion,

we ORDER appellant to file, WITHIN TEN DAY S of the date of this order, a reply brief that complies with the 7,500 word limit. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 9.4(h)(i)(2)(C).

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
#### Com. v. Schildt27

04/06/2016

970 MAL (2015)

27

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

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 503
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 30782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14979]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice: 98-074]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection, 
Comment Request

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of agency report forms under OMB review.

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

SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of 
its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, 
invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this 
opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information 
collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Property records and reporting are 
required to ensure appropriate utilization, safekeeping, accountability 
and control for items provided by NASA or acquired with NASA funds.

DATES: All comments should be submitted on or before August 4, 1998.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Mr. Richard Kall, Code 
HK, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 
20546-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carmela Simonson, NASA Reports 
Officer, (202) 358-1223.
    Title: Property Management and Controls, Grants.
    OMB Number: 2700-0047.
    Type of review: Extension.
    Need and Uses: Collection is required to ensure proper accounting 
of Federal property provided under grants and cooperative agreements 
with institutions of higher education and to satisfy external 
requirements of internal control of property provided by NASA or 
acquired with NASA funds.
    Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions.
    Number of Respondents: 7,149.
    Responses Per Respondent: 4.
    Annual Responses: 28,596.
    Hours Per Request: 4\1/2\ hrs.
    Annual Burden Hours: 128,682.
    Frequency of Report: On occasion.
Donald J. Andreotta,
Deputy Chief Information Officer (Operations), Office of the 
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-14979 Filed 6-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
No. 10M34.

#### Woodrow Wilson Williams, Petitioner v. K. Rudolph, et al.

562 U.S. 819, 131 S. Ct. 378,

178 L. Ed. 2d 14,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6724.

October 4, 2010.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
<PAGE>   1


                      CAPSTAR BROADCASTING PARTNERS, INC.

                                  SUBSIDIARIES



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
            ENTITY                                                   JURISDICTION
            ------                                                   ------------
<S>                                                                     <C>
Capstar Acquisition Company, Inc.                                       Delaware

Capstar Communications California, Inc.                                 Delaware

Capstar Communications, Inc.                                            Delaware

Capstar Operating Corporation                                           Delaware

Capstar Radio Broadcasting Partners, Inc.                               Delaware

Capstar Radio Operating Company                                         Delaware

Capstar Royalty I Corporation                                           Delaware

Capstar Royalty II Corporation                                          Delaware

Capstar TX Limited Partnership                                          Delaware

Jamboree in the Hills, Inc.                                             Delaware

Liberty Broadcasting of Albany Incorporated                             New York

Liberty Broadcasting of New York, Inc.                                  New York

Music Hall Club, Inc.                                                   West Virginia

Osborn Entertainment Enterprises Corporation                            Delaware

Parker Broadcasting Company                                             California

SBI Holding Corporation                                                 Delaware

TBC Radio Acquisition Corp.                                             Delaware

WBAB, Inc.                                                              New York

WBLI, Inc.                                                              New York

WGBB, Inc.                                                              New York

WGNA, Inc.                                                              New York

WGNA-FM, Inc.                                                           New York

WHFM, Inc.                                                              New York

WHJJ, Inc.                                                              Rhode Island

WHJY, Inc.                                                              Rhode Island
</TABLE>



<PAGE>   2



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
            ENTITY                                                   JURISDICTION
            ------                                                   ------------
<S>                                                                     <C>
WPYX, Inc.                                                              New York
WSNE, Inc.                                                              Rhode Island
WTRY, Inc.                                                              New York
</TABLE>
No. 12-7538.

#### Makdessi *v.*Virginia.

Sup. Ct. Va. Certio-rari denied.
2017-1540.

#### State v. Tucker.

Franklin App. No. 15AP-1123, 2017-Ohio-7735. On motion for stay of court of appeals’ judgment. Motion denied.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1941 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1941

     To terminate the Milstar II Communications Satellite program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             March 16 (legislative day, February 22), 1994

  Mr. Bumpers (for himself, Mr. Simon, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
Feingold, and Mr. Leahy) introduced the following bill; which was read 
         twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To terminate the Milstar II Communications Satellite program.

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

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF MILSTAR II COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE PROGRAM.

    (a) Termination of Program.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
terminate the Milstar II Communications Satellite program.
    (b) Payment of Termination Costs.--Funds available on or after the 
date of the enactment of this Act for obligation for the Milstar II 
Communications Satellite program may be obligated for that program only 
for payment of the costs associated with the termination of that 
program.

                                 <all>
```
#### New York Studios, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Steiner Digital Studios et al., Appellants.

[53 NYS3d 526]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered on or about April 15, 2016, which, to the extent ap*455pealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the causes of action for usurpation of corporate opportunities and an accounting, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

The parties’ operating agreement, which allows defendants to compete with plaintiff Eponymous Associates, LLC, does not flatly contradict plaintiffs’ claim that defendants usurped Eponymous’s corporate opportunities and assets *(see*CPLR 3211 [a] [1]; *Biondi v Beekman Hill House Apt. Corp.,*257 AD2d 76, 81 [1st Dept 1999], *affd*94 NY2d 659 [2000]; *see also Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]). However, the claim is not pleaded with the requisite particularity *(see*CPLR 3016 [b]; *Peacock v Herald Sq. Loft Corp.,*67 AD3d 442, 443 [1st Dept 2009]).

In the absence of an allegation that plaintiffs demanded an accounting, the claim for an accounting fails to state a cause of action *(see Unitel Telecard Distrib. Corp. v Nunez,*90 AD3d 568 [1st Dept 2011]; *Adam v Cutner & Rathkopf,*238 AD2d 234, 241 [1st Dept 1997]; *compare Kaufman v Cohen,*307 AD2d 113, 123-124 [1st Dept 2003]).

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Gische and Kahn, JJ.