alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Morgan Goulet, Respondent, v James P. Anastasio et al., Appellants.

[48 NYS3d 731]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Brathwaite Nelson, J.), entered February 24, 2016, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On January 3, 2011, the plaintiff attempted to cross 36th *784Avenue in the vicinity of its intersection with 38th Street in Queens. He entered the eastbound travel lane between the rear of a large truck and the front of another vehicle. He continued crossing the street and was struck in the westbound travel lane by a vehicle that was owned by the defendant Vanessa Vasquez and operated by the defendant James P. Anastasio. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action against the defendants, alleging negligence and seeking to recover damages for his personal injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the defendants appeal. We affirm.

The transcripts of the deposition testimony submitted by the defendants in support of their motion contained conflicting versions of where the accident occurred and whether the light controlling traffic on 36th Avenue was red or green. This conflicting deposition testimony supports different conclusions regarding fault *(compare*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 [d] [1], *with*Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1151 Pd]; 1152 [a], *and Balliet v North Amityville Fire Dept.,*133 AD3d 559, 560 [2015]), and raises triable issues of fact about comparative negligence *(see Steiner v Dincesen,*95 AD3d 877, 877-878 [2012]). Therefore, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as they failed to demonstrate the absence of triable issues of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers (see *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d at 853).

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.
No. 09-11557.

#### James Rodriguez, Sr., Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 887, 131 S. Ct. 220,

178 L. Ed. 2d 132,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6835.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
2017-0752.

#### In re Application of Ohio Power Co.

Public Utilities Commission, Nos. 14-1693-EL-RDR and 14-1694-EL-AAM. On motion of Ohio Power Company for leave to intervene as appellee. Motion granted.
No. 10-5139.

#### Mark Curry, Petitioner v. Hugh Wolfenbarger, Warden.

562 U.S. 905, 131 S. Ct. 247,

178 L. Ed. 2d 164,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6927.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
2017-1697.

#### Wilson v. Eppinger.

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.
# Patriot Day: A day of solemn remembrance

/ Published Sept. 7, 2021
FORT BELVOIR, Va. , 
Sept. 11, 2021, marks the 20th anniversary of al-Qaida’s terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon and the downing of United Airlines Flight 93. The events of that day remain a vivid memory for most Defense Logistics Agency employees.  

Four jet planes were hijacked that day with two of them crashing into the New York World Trade Center and one into the western side of the Pentagon. The fourth plane was directed at Washington D.C., but never arrived as its passengers bravely attempted to take back control. It crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. These acts of terrorism killed 2,996 innocent people including 343 firefighters and 72 police officers. 

Following the attacks, President George H.W. Bush proclaimed Sept. 14 a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance for the victims. A bill to make Sept. 11 a national day of mourning was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives Oct. 25, 2001, by Rep. Vito Fossella with 22 co-sponsors. The result was the resolution to proclaim Sept. 11, 2002, as the first Patriot Day.

On Patriot Day, American flags are flown at half-staff as a mark of respect for those lives lost and as a visual reminder of the unity and perseverance of the United States. DLA employees are encouraged to reaffirm their patriotism and sense of service felt in the days and months following the attack. Volunteering in local communities is just one way to renew the spirit of unity and compassion.
No. 09-11286.

#### James Douglas Clausell, Petitioner v. Lydell B. Sherrer, Administrator, Northern State Prison, et al.

562 U.S. 871, 131 S. Ct. 172,

178 L. Ed. 2d 103,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7069.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 594 F.3d 191.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          41,736
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          19,065
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    404,230
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,164,421
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,609
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,718,933
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,321,510
<SHORT-TERM>                                    14,656
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             23,640
<LONG-TERM>                                    275,823
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              683
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,621
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,718,933
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 21,807
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  724
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 6,748
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                29,279
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              13,841
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,876
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           10,562
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      195
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,031
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,640
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       7,640
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,720
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.73
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.76
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,743
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    97
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  6,736
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,418
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        4
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,609
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               812
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,797


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2.  CERTIFICATION   I, S. E. Parks, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this report of Questar Gas Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and we have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial 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 has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.    August 7, 2008 /s/S. E. Parks S. E. Parks Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Maria Blake, Appellant, v Gregory Blake, Respondent.

[65 NYS3d 454]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Frank R Ñervo, J.), entered April 20, 2017, which, in this divorce action, sua sponte dismissed the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the complaint reinstated.

A sua sponte order is not appealable as of right *(see*CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; *Sholes v Meagher,*100 NY2d 333, 335 [2003]). However, given the extraordinary nature of the sua sponte relief, that is, dismissal of the complaint, the parties’ competing claims, and the court’s failure to identify a legal basis for dismissing the complaint other than that an action between the parties was pending in New Jersey seeking the same relief—a ground it had previously rejected in retaining jurisdiction over the financial issues ancillary to the divorce action—we deem the notice of appeal from the order to be a motion for leave to appeal, and grant such leave *(see*CPLR 5701 [c]; *see e.g. All Craft Fabricators, Inc. v ATC Assoc., Inc.,*153 AD3d 1159 [1st Dept 2017]; *Serradilla v Lords Corp.,*12 AD3d 279, 280 [1st Dept 2004]).

*524A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, “should be used sparingly and only in extraordinary circumstances” *(Ray v Chen,*148 AD3d 568, 569 [1st Dept 2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, based on the record before us, no such circumstances exist to warrant dismissal. Further, in the absence of notice to plaintiff wife that the complaint would be dismissed, “the court was virtually without jurisdiction to grant the relief afforded” to defendant husband *(id.*[internal quotation marks omitted]).

Concur—Gische, J.P., Webber, Oing, Singh and Moulton, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 32032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15577]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Speical Emphasis Panel in Electrical and Communications Systems; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Electrical and Communications 
Systems (1196).
    Date and Time: June 29-30, 1998; 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
    Place: Room 380, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Usha Varshney, Program Director, Physical 
Foundations of Enabling Technologies (PFET) Division of Electrical 
and Communications Systems, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Room 675, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone: (703) 306-1339.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Physical Foundations on Enabling 
Technologies proposals as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552B(c) (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: June 8, 1998.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-15577 Filed 6-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### LV Construction Services LLC, Appellant, v Manhattan Professional Group, Inc., Doing Business as The Tax Club, et al., Defendants, and Empire State Land Associates LLC et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Empire State Land Associates, LLC, Respondent, v LV Construction Services LLC, Appellant.

[53 NYS3d 275]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), *641entered on or about April 3, 2015, which (1) cancelled and discharged the lien filed by LV Construction Services LLC (LV) against the 60th floor of 350 Fifth Avenue in the sum of $275,000, (2) cancelled the undertaking filed by defendant Berkley Regional Insurance Company (Berkley) to discharge the mechanic’s lien, (3) granted defendants Empire State Land Associates LLC and Berkley’s motion for summary judgment dismissing LV’s complaint, and (4) denied as moot LV’s motion for a default judgment against defendants the Tax Club, Inc. and Manhattan Professional Group; and order, same court (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered on or about June 10, 2015, which cancelled and discharged the mechanic’s lien and discharge bond, based on LV’s failure to provide a proper accounting for the services and materials supporting the lien, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The liens that LV attempted to place on the 60th floor of the Empire State Building were properly vacated and cancelled. In the first action, the IAS court correctly determined that LV had failed to properly serve the notice of lien on all of the appropriate interested entities, warranting vacatur of the lien (Lien Law § 11; *146 W. 45th St. Corp. v McNally,*188 AD2d 410, 410-411 [1st Dept 1992]; *Matter of Hui’s Realty v Transcontinental Constr. Servs.,*168 AD2d 302, 302-303 [1st Dept 1990], *lv denied*77 NY2d 810 [1991]). In the second action, which proceeded during the pendency of the first action’s appeal, prior to this Court’s consolidation of the appeals, the IAS court correctly, again, cancelled and discharged the lien based on LV’s repeated failures to properly itemize the charges forming the basis for the lien (Lien Law § 38; *Matter of DePalo v McNamara,*139 AD2d 646 [2d Dept 1988]).

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.R, Mazzarelli, Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.
BISMARCK-MANDAN

DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION

701-222-5530 • fax 701-222-3843 .1-888-222-5497 info@bmda.org' www.bmda.org

July 24,2013

Ms. Brooke Chapman,

Associate Director

Small Community Air Service Development Program

U.S. Department of Transportation

8

th Floor, Room W86-307

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,

Washington D.C. 20590

Reference: Docket DOT-OST-2013-0120

Dear Ms. Chapman,

]>

The Bismarck Airport has submitted to the Department of Transportation an application for a

2013 Small Community Air Service Development (SCASD)Grant. The Airport's application is for

funding to support new network air service, focused on American Airlines and flights to Dallas

or Chicago.

A consistent concern of our membership is convenient and affordable air service. BismarckMandan is host to a Fortune 500 company as well as major employers and players in

healthcare, energy, agriculture and technology industries.

The BMDA fully supports the Bismarck-Mandan Airport's mission to expand service through the

recruitment of a major carrier like American. A Chicago route would have profound impact on

the availability and affordability of flights east that impact all businesses, and the route to

Dallas will pay huge dividends to the increased investment by the energy industry.

,I encourage you to look favorably on the application by the Bismarck Airport for the SCASD

grant.

Sincerely,

Brian Ritter, Acting Executive Director

Bismarck-Mandan Development Association

HIGH PLAINS. HIGH STANDARDS

400 East Broadway Avenue PO Box 2615 Bismarck,NO 58502
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2087

To extend the time period for compliance with the Nutrition Labeling and

Education Act of 1990 for certain food products packaged prior to

August 18, 1994.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 6 (legislative day, MAY 2), 1994

Mr. BUMPERS (for himself, Mr. HATCH, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. DANFORTH, Mr.

PRYOR, Mr. BOND, Mr. WOFFORD, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. HELMS, and Mr.

SIMPSON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

MAY 17 (legislative day, MAY 16), 1994

Committee discharged

A BILL

To extend the time period for compliance with the Nutrition

Labeling and Education Act of 1990 for certain food

products packaged prior to August 18, 1994.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That before August 18, 1994, sections 403(q) and

4 403(r)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

5 or section 7 of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act

6 of 1990 shall not apply with respect to a food product

7 which is contained in a package for which the label was
2

S 2087 CDS

1 printed before April 1, 1994, if, before June 15, 1994,

2 the person who introduces or delivers for introduction such

3 food product into interstate commerce submits to the Sec4 retary of Health and Human Services a certification that

5 such person will comply with this section and will comply

6 with such sections 403(q) and 403(r)(2) after August 18,

7 1994.

Æ
exv10w1



 






Exhibit 10.1




Summary of 2006 Trustee Compensation Program



For the 12-month period commencing May 24, 2006, the non-employee members of the Board of Trustees
of Equity Office Properties Trust, other than Samuel Zell, will be compensated as follows:





	 	1.	 	a base rate of compensation in the amount of $125,000 per annum; plus
	 
	 	2.	 	$4,000 for each Board committee of which he or she is a member, provided that each
member of the Audit Committee shall receive $8,000 rather than $4,000 for such committee
service; plus
	 
	 	3.	 	an additional $6,000 for each committee of which he or she is chair, provided that the
chair of the Audit Committee shall receive an additional $7,000 rather than $6,000 for
service in such capacity; plus
	 
	 	4.	 	$15,000 for services as the Lead Independent Trustee.




In addition, subject to such exceptions as may be determined from time to time by the Compensation
Committee, or as may be elected by the recipient Trustee, all of the foregoing compensation shall
be paid in Common Shares of Equity Office Properties Trust deemed to have been issued pursuant to
the amended and restated the 2003 Share Option and Share Incentive Plan, all of which, unless
directed otherwise by the distributee, shall be paid by deposit to the account maintained for the
benefit of the subject Trustee in Equity Office’s Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan.
#### Lorenzo v. Milner; Lorenzo, In re

03/30/2016

553 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 131 A.3d 105
No. 12-8153.

#### DeJesus *v.*Crews, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
2017-0138.

#### State v. Xu.

Delaware App. No. 15 CAA 11 0091, 2016-Ohio-8237.
No. 10-5450.

#### Eric Wise, Petitioner v. James Kaiser, et al.

562 U.S. 922, 131 S. Ct. 301,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7310.

178 L. Ed. 2d 196,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 371 Fed. Appx. 673.
Exhibit 15.16




LETTER OF CONSENT





We hereby consent to the reference to each of our studies listed below, which we prepared for Elbit Imaging Ltd. (the "Company"), in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009 and to the incorporation by reference of such Annual Report in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-117509, No. 333-130852, No. 333-136684 and No. 333-152820) filed by Elbit Imaging Ltd. and in the Shelf Prospectus filed by Elbit Imaging Ltd. with the Israeli Securities Authority and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange on July 21, 2009:




·
Valuation report in respect of options granted in August 30, 2009 under the framework of ESOP 2008, dated November 2009;


·
Valuation report in respect of options granted in May 27, 2009 under the framework of ESOP 2008, dated June 2009;


·
Valuation report in respect of options re-priced in May 20, 2009  under the framework of ESOP 2006, dated June  2009;




This consent is not to be construed as an admission that we are an expert or that we are a person whose consent is required to be filed with the Annual Report under the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.





Very truly yours,





/s/ Giza Zinger Even

Giza Zinger Even




Tel Aviv, Israel


May 9, 2010