alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bookman, Matter of, v Annucci

3d Dept: 141 AD3d 1060

denied*
#### Steven Benkovsky, Appellant, v Gregg Lorenzo et al., Respondents.

[65 NYS3d 713]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Cohen, J.), entered September 30, 2016, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant Gregg Lorenzo’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly dismissed the complaint, which alleged claims against Lorenzo only. On the breach of contract claim, Lorenzo established that he was not a party to the loan agreement and had not executed a written personal guarantee; *585plaintiff failed to raise issues of fact as to either issue. Claims of an oral guarantee of defendant GJL’s obligations are barred by the statute of frauds *(see*General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [2]).

As for the unjust enrichment claim, Lorenzo established the loan proceeds were used for their stated purpose and not to unjustly enrich him, and plaintiff failed to raise issues of fact as to this point *(see Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. v Rieder,*19 NY3d 511, 516 [2012]). Plaintiff’s unsupported testimony that he believed defendants were alter egos of each other, fell short of creating a triable issue. Plaintiff’s alleged belief was belied by his request that Lorenzo personally guarantee GJL’s loan, which showed he understood the two defendants to be distinct from each other.

Defendant showed that the claims for misrepresentation and fraud were duplicative of the breach of contract claim, and plaintiff presented no grounds to show how the claims could be sustained independently *(see Demetre v HMS Holdings Corp.,*127 AD3d 493, 494 [1st Dept 2015]). In addition, plaintiff failed to show a “special relationship” sufficient to sustain the negligent misrepresentation claim *(see Mandarin Trading Ltd. v Wildenstein,*16 NY3d 173, 180 [2011]).

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

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Webber, Kahn and Singh, JJ.
#### Grant, Matter of, v New York City Loft Bd.

1st Dept: 145 AD3d 638

denied
### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT: TEST PROCEDURES FOR

METAL HALIDE BALLASTS

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.

Washington, DC 20585

Friday, December 19, 2008

9 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. ET, Room 8E-089

Purpose

During this meeting the Department of Energy (DOE) will present the notice of proposed

rulemaking on test procedures for Metal Halide Li ght Fixtures for ballast efficiency and standby

mode and off mode power consumption. This meeting is intended to familiarize interested

stakeholders with DOE’s statutory requi rements and proposed test procedures.

Agenda

9:00-9:05 am Welcome

Linda Graves

9:05-9:15 am Opening Remarks, Introductions, and Agenda Review

Doug Brookman

9:15-9:30 am Stakeholder Opening Statements

Doug Brookman

9:30-10:20 am Statute and Context

Michael Myer

Overview of product rulemaking activity, including statutory authority, schedules, and associated

documents

10:20-11:00 am Proposed Ballast Efficiency T est Method: Test Setup and Conditions, Test

Measurement, and Ballast Efficiency Calculation

Michael Myer

Definition of covered products, la mp orientation, power supply, ambient test temperature, test

instrumentation and lamp stabilization requi rements based on ANSI Standard C82.6-2005

11:00-11:15 am Break

11:15-12:00 pm Proposed Standby and Off Mode Test Method

Michael Myer

Definition of active, standby, and off modes; review of testing methods based on using ANSI

Standard C82.6-2005 testing procedures

12:15-12:30 pm Conclusions and Closing Remarks

Linda Graves/Doug Brookman

Discuss outstanding issues and make concluding remarks

12:30 pm Adjourn
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Miguel Adrian-Reyes, Appellant.

[65 NYS3d 183]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered January 29, 2014, as amended February 21, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first and third degrees and conspiracy in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Moreover, the evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. The only reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence, which included intercepted conversations, is that defendant was a participant in a large-scale drug trafficking operation, and that he knowingly transported a very large quantity of cocaine in his car as part of his role in that operation.

The court providently exercised its discretion in declining to give an adverse inference charge. At the time of defendant’s arrest, the police seized the car he was driving, which was used to transport drugs, and which contained a secret compartment commonly used by drug dealers. At the inception of the case, the People offered defendant the opportunity to inspect or photograph the car and the secret compartment, but defendant never availed himself of that opportunity. Defendant first raised the issue at trial, when it was revealed that the car had *538been transferred to the United States Marshals Service and sold, apparently under a federal forfeiture procedure not entirely explained in the record. Under these circumstances, defendant cannot complain about the People’s failure to retain the car, and defendant’s inaction was an appropriate ground for denying an adverse inference charge *(see People v Handy,*20 NY3d 663, 669 [2013]; *People v D’Attore,*151 AD3d 548, 549 [1st Dept 2017], *lv denied*30 NY3d 948 [2017]).

In any event, regardless of whether the court should have given an adverse inference charge for the disposal of defendant’s car and the secret compartment it contained, we find that defendant was not prejudiced, because photographs and other competent evidence adequately depicted the nature of the compartment. Furthermore, any error was harmless, because this compartment, which was not actually found to contain drugs, was only part of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We adhere to our prior decision in which we denied defendant’s motion for disclosure of the unredacted affidavits supporting the warrant applications, the sealed *Darden*hearing minutes *(People v Darden,*34 NY2d 177, 181-182 [1974]) and related relief. As previously directed by this Court, we conducted an in camera review of the unredacted affidavits supporting the warrant applications and of the *Darden*hearing. We find that there was probable cause for the issuance of the warrants for eavesdropping and for placing a GPS tracking device on defendant’s car.

Concur—Richter, J.P., Kapnick, Web-ber, Oing and Singh, JJ.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed May 12, 2021

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D 21

- 52 4 Lower Tribunal No. 20

- 9 2 1 9

________________ Michael Ducote, et al. , Petitioner s ,
vs. Riacho, LLC, etc. , Respondent

.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Lourdes Simon , Judge. Kula & Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula and W. Aaron Daniel and William D. Mueller , for petitioner s

. De La Peña Group, P.A., and Leoncio E. d e l a Peña D., Otto C. de Córdoba and Tracy Pérez , for respondent

.

Before SCAL E S, LOBR E E and B OKO R , JJ. PER CURIAM.2 Petitioners Michael Ducote and Gulflet Properties, LLC seek certiorari review of a February 1, 2021 trial court order that overruled P etitioners’ objections to a non

- p arty discovery subpoena. The subpoena was directed toward P etitioners’ former law firm, Adams & Reese, LLP (the “Law Firm”) , wh ich also served as the escrow agent for a real estate transaction. After entry of both the challenged order and P etitioners’ February 1 5 , 2021 filing of the instant petition, the discovery subpoena was served on the Law Firm, and the Law Firm filed its own m otion for protective order objecting to the subpoena. Just as P etitioners had argued in their objections, the Law Firm’s motion asserted that several of the sought documents were privileged. On March 11, 2021, the trial court conducted a hearing on the Law Firm’s objections and entered a March 12, 2021 order that grant s in part the Law Firm’s motion for protective order (the “March 12th Order”) . In relevant part, the March 12 th O rder require s P etitioners to review the sought documents with the Law Firm a nd prepare a privilege log pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(6). Th e March 12 th O rder also require s P etitioners to produce to r espondent Riacho, LLC all documents for which no privilege is claimed. As to the documents for which a privile ge is claimed, the March 12 th O rder provides that the trial court will conduct “an evidentiary3 hearing and conduct an in camera review where necessary, prior to production of such documents.” Neither party has challenged th e March 12 th O rder, which appear s to assuage the concerns raised in P etitioners’ petition. We t herefore exercise our discretion not to reach the merits of the petition and, instead, dismiss the petition as having been mooted by the trial court’s entry of the March 12 th O rder. Petition di smissed as moot.
No. 10-6366.

#### Guillermo Jaime Villegas, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 975, 131 S. Ct. 494,

178 L. Ed. 2d 312,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7905.

October 12, 2010.

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

Same case below, 380 Fed. Appx. 445.
March 12, 2015

Mr. John Bray

585 Pocahantas Drive Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547

Dear Mr. Bray:

This letter is to inform you that we are unabl e to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we cannot proce ss your request and what you s hould do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your January 14, 2015, exemption request on behalf of I Drone Your Home into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0071), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR fr om which you seek relief and the extent of the relief you seek.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or ar guments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any fu rther, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requi res you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days , we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additiona l time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Nia Daniels Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### BCG Partners, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Avison Young (Canada) Inc. et al., Respondents-Appellants.

[67 NYS3d 588]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered July 18, 2016, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the causes of action for tortious interference with contractual relations and prospective business relations, conspiracy, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment, and denied the motion to dismiss the causes of action for aiding and abetting breach of the duty of fidelity, theft of trade secrets, and injunctive relief, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion as to the theft of trade secrets cause of action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The cause of action for tortious interference with the Nevada and South Carolina agreements was correctly dismissed since plaintiffs’ allegation of “but for” causation is conclusory *(see Cantor Fitzgerald Assoc. v Tradition N. Am.,*299 AD2d 204 [1st Dept 2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 508 [2003]). In support of the cause of action for tortious interference with the broker agreements and the cause of action for tortious interference with prospective business relations, plaintiffs failed to allege interference by wrongful means *(see Guard-Life Corp. v Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp.,*50 NY2d 183, 193-194 [1980]). Plaintiffs’ arguments addressed to the cause of action for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty are unpreserved and in any event *532unavailing, since no fiduciary relationship arises from an employment relationship *(see Rather v CBS Corp.,*68 AD3d 49, 55 [2009], *lv denied*13 NY3d 715 [2010]). The relationship between the parties is too attenuated to support a claim for unjust enrichment *(see Sperry v Crompton Corp.,*8 NY3d 204, 215-216 [2007]).

The cause of action for theft of trade secrets should be dismissed since in the circumstances the means by which defendants allegedly lured the brokers away from nonparty Grubb & Ellis, i.e., offering them competitive compensation, are not wrongful or improper (cf. *Schroeder v Pinterest Inc.,*133 AD3d 12, 28 [1st Dept 2015] [company officer gave confidential and proprietary information to competitor]; *Guard-Life Corp.,*50 NY2d at 191 [wrongful means include “fraud or misrepresentation, . . . and some degrees of economic pressure; they do not, however, include persuasion alone although it is knowingly directed at interference with the contract”]).

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them unavailing.

Concur—Gische, J.P., Webber, Oing, Singh and Moulton, JJ.
#### Bernadette Pierre, Appellant, v Ryevett Motley, Respondent.

[47 NYS3d 716]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rouse, J.), dated October 26, 2015, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by submitting evidence showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injury to the plaintiff’s right shoulder did not constitute a serious injury under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Staff v Yshua,*59 AD3d 614 [2009]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triáble issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Balkin, J.P., Miller, Duffy, LaSalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
# South East Leadership Summit proves successful

/ Published Jan. 19, 2023
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
Members of the Disposition Services South East team came together for their annual leadership summit, during January. Participants from the region’s sites and discussed a variety of topics including best practices, operations and leadership techniques as well as getting a tour of the site in Anniston, Alabama.

Disposition Services Deputy Director Colonel Andre Toussaint took time to address the attendees on the topic of being a good leader. Colonel Toussaint touched on the importance of good leadership and how it benefits our work force.

“Everybody needs to understand where they fit within the organization,” Toussaint said. “My job as a deputy director isn’t any more important than a wage grade position. We all have different roles but we are all doing our part towards helping the agency as we strive to be the Department of Defense’s reverse logistics center of excellence. As leaders, it’s important to teach our people so they understand their role and the roles of the person to their left and right.”

During the two - day summit, participants had group discussions on operational best practices, common site issues, as well as transportation matters. The in-person environment allowed for an interactive experience as was echoed by participant Autray Humphrey who was attending his first leadership summit.

“It was more beneficial being face-to-face [versus virtual], being able to match names with faces and also be able to connect with those who can help us do our jobs better,” said Humphrey, the operations chief at the Warner Robins site.

The summit also included a tour of the Odenville contractor site where attendees were able to witness the demilitarization process with both material handling equipment and torch cutting taking place.

The summit concluded with a Warehouse Management System workshop, a discussion on lessons learned and an awards presentation.

“The purpose of bringing them all out here was to put them in a safe learning environment where we feel comfortable to talk and share the good, bad and the ugly,” said Becky Watson, director of South East Region. “I brought them here to help them realize that you aren’t alone – we share the same issues. Every conversation was productive and that is a testament to those who were in attendance.”

As the South East team plans for a successful 2023, this most recent leadership summit proved beneficial as those in attendance look to implement the lessons learned going forward throughout the region.

“I would say this summit was a success,” mentioned Humphrey. “One thing I have taken away is that a lot of us share the same concerns and issues. We were able to discuss some ways to implement ideas that can help improve each of our individual sites.”
# DLA Distribution Susquehanna dispatcher is awarded DLA Emergency Communication Center Dispatcher of the Year award

/ Published Jan. 12, 2022
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania Emergency Dispatcher Jack Dietrich has been awarded the 2021 DLA Emergency Communication Center Dispatcher of the Year award.

Over the past year Dietrich was also named the 2020 Emergency Communication Center Professional of the Year, 2020 Emergency Communication Center Employee of the Quarter twice and 2020 Security Management Branch Employee of the Quarter.

Through the ongoing pandemic Dietrich led the effort to integrate COVID-19 screening questions into the caller interrogation process, creating a safer environment for responding fire and police personnel.

By way of leadership and training from Dietrich, the dispatch team properly interrogated, classified, dispatched and documented over 2,668 fire, police, emergency medical services and mutual aid responses.

Dietrich demonstrated multiple examples of initiative and resourcefulness throughout the year as he was the lead on multiple initiatives to ensure overall safety of warehouse employees and everyone on the installation. His actions not only lead to increased safety on installation, but also increased coordination with the local municipality.

Dietrich’s actions demonstrated the utmost levels of professionalism and are a great reflection upon himself, the Emergency Communication Center and DLA Distribution as a whole.
# L_2011133EN.01001801.xml

| 20.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 133/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 133/18

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision 2011/33/EU of 8 November 2010 on the conclusion of the Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the general principles for the participation of Ukraine in Union programmes

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 18 of 21 January 2011
  )

The publication of Decision 2011/33/EU is to be considered null and void.

---
No. 10-5781.

#### Donald Kenneth Carlson, Petitioner v. Michigan.

562 U.S. 937, 131 S. Ct. 345,

178 L. Ed. 2d 224,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7139.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
No. 10-6202.

#### Jorge Alberto Sura-Villalta, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 971, 131 S. Ct. 483,

178 L. Ed. 2d 305,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8110.

October 12, 2010.

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

Same case below, 380 Fed. Appx. 407.
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

06/21

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 21 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.81 N 76.74 W Meters AGL
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1995
<CASH>                                         248,700
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  988,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                    24,600
<INVENTORY>                                    809,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,201,200
<PP&E>                                       2,572,900
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,445,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,707,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,712,400
<BONDS>                                        459,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           46,100
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,610,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,707,400
<SALES>                                      5,612,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,628,700
<CGS>                                        4,357,900
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,267,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              47,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                342,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                   109,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            213,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                     (16,000)
<NET-INCOME>                                   197,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.08
        

</TABLE>