alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Helen Berkowitz, Respondent, v Dayton Construction, Inc., Defendant, Jacaroga, LLC, Respondent, and Blockbuster Video, Inc., Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 730]

*765In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Blockbuster Video, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated October 31, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Blockbuster Video, Inc., and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when she tripped and fell on a sidewalk on 64th Avenue in Queens County, which was adjacent to a building that was leased by the defendant Blockbuster Video, Inc. (hereinafter Blockbuster), and owned by the defendant Jacaroga, LLC (hereinafter Jacaroga). In opposition to Blockbuster’s contention that it owed no duty to the plaintiff to maintain the sidewalk, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact by demonstrating that Blockbuster created the defective condition, negligently made repairs, or used the sidewalk for a special purpose (see *Lowenthal v Heidrich Realty Corp.,*304 AD2d 725, 726-727 [2003]; *Yee v Chang Xin Food Mkt.,*302 AD2d 518, 519 [2003]; *Lobel v Rodco Petroleum Corp.,*233 AD2d 369 [1996]). Moreover, the lease between Jacaroga and Blockbuster does not create a duty to the plaintiff as a pedestrian (see *Kennedy v C & C New Main St. Corp.,*269 AD2d 499, 500 [2000]; *DeCurtis v T.H. Assoc.,*241 AD2d 536, 537 [1997]). Thus, any failure of Blockbuster to maintain the sidewalk as required under the lease does not create liability on its part to plaintiff. Therefore, Blockbuster is entitled to dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

With respect to Jacaroga’s cross claim against Blockbuster for contribution and indemnification, Blockbuster correctly contends that it was not required under the lease to repair the alleged defect, a raised sidewalk slab, as such a defect is structural *(see Salzberg v Futernick,*281 AD2d 467 [2001]; *see also Margolin v New York Life Ins. Co.,*32 NY2d 149, 153 [1973]). Under the lease, Blockbuster is only required to make nonstructural repairs. Jacaroga’s contention that the plaintiff tripped over a tuft of grass in the expansion joints of the sidewalk rather than on the misaligned sidewalk is a feigned issue not supported by the record, and therefore was insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment *(see Krohn v Melanson,*298 AD2d 510, 511 [2002]; *Marcelle v New York City Tr. Auth.,*289 *766AD2d 459 [2001]). Accordingly, Blockbuster was entitled to the dismissal of Jacaroga’s cross claim asserted against it. Smith, J.P., McGinity, H. Miller and Rivera, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,915
<ALLOWANCES>                                       985
<INVENTORY>                                     16,087
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,191
<PP&E>                                          35,162
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,347
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,888
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,758
<BONDS>                                        229,056
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           40,279
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                   (200,799)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,888
<SALES>                                         76,120
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,120
<CGS>                                           47,050
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,050
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,761
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,765
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    544
<INCOME-TAX>                                       434
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                110
<DISCONTINUED>                                (18,484)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,374)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 31909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7898]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition

    Determinations: ``50th Anniversary Remembrance of the Tragedy at 
Orly''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the object to be 
included in the exhibition ``50th Anniversary Remembrance of the 
Tragedy at Orly,'' imported from abroad by the High Museum of Art for 
temporary exhibition within the United States, is of cultural 
significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with 
the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition 
or display of the exhibit object at the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, 
Georgia from on or about June 2, 2012 to on or about September 9, 2012; 
and possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined; is 
in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
listing of the exhibit object, contact Ona M. Hahs, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6473). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: May 23, 2012.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-13101 Filed 5-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
No. 10-6042.

#### William Glenn Boyd, Petitioner v. Richard F. Allen, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 1066, 131 S. Ct. 645,

178 L. Ed. 2d 487,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9390.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 592 F.3d 1274.
No. 10-7376.

#### Omarr Lowe, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1096, 131 S. Ct. 809,

178 L. Ed. 2d 541,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9473.

December 6, 2010.

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

Same case below, 389 Fed. Appx. 561.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14406]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Education and Human Resources; Committee 
of Visitors; Notice of Meeting

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

    Name: Committee of visitors (COV) Review of the Comprehensive 
Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement Program (1119).
    Date and time: June 18-19, 1998; 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
    Type of meeting: Closed.
    Contact Persons: Dr. Alexandra King and Dr. Victor Santiago, 
National Science Foundation, (703) 306-1632 or (703) 306-1633.
    Purpose of meeting: To provide oversight review of the 
Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement 
Program.
    Agenda: To carry out Committee of visitors' review, including 
examination of decisions on applications, reviewer comments, and 
other privileged materials.
    Reason for closing: These meetings are closed to the public 
because the Committee will be reviewing proposal actions that will 
include privileged intellectual property and personal information 
that could harm individuals if they were disclosed. If discussions 
were open to the public, these matters that are exempt under 5 
U.S.C. 552(b)(c)(4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act 
would improperly be disclosed.

    Dated: May 27, 1998.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-14406 Filed 5-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Exhibit 10.22**INCREASING LENDER AGREEMENT**Dated January 31, 2006     Reference is made to the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of July 27, 2005 (asthe same may be amended, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “***CreditAgreement***”), among Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc. (the “***Borrower***”), the Lenders named therein, UnionBank of California, N.A.. as Administrative Agent, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (as successor to BankOne, NA), as Syndication Agent, and Wachovia Bank, National Association and Citibank, N.A., asCo-Documentation Agents. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall havethe meanings assigned thereto in the Credit Agreement. Pursuant to Section 2.01(e) of the CreditAgreement, Union Bank of California, N.A. (the “***Increasing Lender***”) has agreed to increase itsCommitment from $21,333,333.00 to $26,333,333.00.     The Increasing Lender and the Administrative Agent agree as follows:     1. The Increasing Lender agrees, on the terms and conditions set forth in the CreditAgreement, to make Loans to the Borrower and to participate in the issuance of Letters of Credit(and the LC Outstanding thereunder) during the period from the date hereof until the RevolvingCredit Termination Date (subject to Section 2.01(b) of the Credit Agreement), in an aggregateoutstanding amount not to exceed on any day the Increasing Lender’s Commitment set forth oppositeits signature below.     2. On the date hereof (the “***Effective Date***”), the Increasing Lender shall pay to theAdministrative Agent, in same day funds, at such address and account as the Administrative Agentshall advise the Increasing Lender, $0.00, which amount shall be used to purchase by assignmentfrom the existing Lenders such portion of the Loans owing to them such that, after giving effect toall such purchases and assignments, the Increasing Lender will share such Loans ratably with eachof them (based upon the Increasing Lender’s Percentage). As of the Effective Date, upon thepayment of such amount, the Commitment of the Increasing Lender shall be the amount set forthopposite its signature below.     3. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different parties inseparate counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and all ofwhich taken together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.     4. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of theState of New York.
1

 
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by theirrespective officers thereunto duly authorized, as of the date first above written.***Commitment***       $26,333,333.00 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, N.A.         By: /s/ Dennis G. Blank       Name: Dennis G. Blank      Title: Vice President           UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, N.A.  as Administrative Agent         By: /s/ Dennis G. Blank       Name: Dennis G. Blank      Title: Vice President  AGREED and ACCEPTED
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ameritrans Capital Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2010 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 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 operation of the Company.   Date: May 17, 2010/s/ Gary C. Granoff
Gary C. Granoff
Chief Financial Officer
S91A1085.

#### ARRINGTON v. ARRINGTON.

(407 SE2d 758)

Decided September 6, 1991.

*Waddell, Emerson, George & Buice, E. Angela Emerson,*for appellant.

Hunt, Justice.

We granted the former husband’s application for discretionary appeal to review the child support award in this case. The former husband argues the trial court improperly converted a lump-sum property settlement into a child support order. The effect of the trial court’s order regarding the division of the marital home is disputed.1 Nonetheless, a lump sum award of child support is authorized. *Fricks v. Fricks,*215 Ga. 137, 140 (2) (109 SE2d 596) (1959); see generally OCGA § 19-6-15 (a); *Martin v. Martin,*254 Ga. 376 (329 SE2d 503) (1985). The trial court, however, is not bound by an agreement between the parties regarding child support nor is its obligation satisfied by simply adopting that agreement. The trial court is obligated to consider whether such support is sufficient based on the children’s needs, and the parent’s ability to pay. *McClain v. McClain,*237 Ga. 80, 83 (5) (227 SE2d 5) (1976); *Walker v. Walker,*260 Ga. 442 (396 SE2d 235) (1990). When, as in this case, the existence of and the terms of the agreement are disputed and the sufficiency of child support is called into question, the record should reflect the trial court’s comparison of need and ability to pay and it should reflect an award that is consistent with that comparison. Since it is not apparent from this record that the trial court considered those factors, this case is remanded for that purpose.

*Judgment vacated and remanded.*

*All the Justices concur. Smith, P. J., disqualified.*

*548*Shane M. Geeter,*for appellee.

1

 The division was to reflect the court’s perception of an agreement between the parties as to child support, as stated during a non-jury hearing on temporary issues. Following that hearing the husband quit-claimed his interest in the house to the wife. The wife now asserts the husband retained his interest in that property and the court’s final order appears to confirm that position.
#### Grisell Cabrera, Respondent, v Picker International, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[770 NYS2d 302]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Tar gum, J.), entered May 13, 2003, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Insofar as based on CPLR 214-c (2), the motion was properly denied for failure to show that plaintiff discovered the primary condition on which the claim is based before September 1992, more than three years before she instituted the action *(Matter of New York County DES Litig.,*89 NY2d 506, 509, 514 [1997]). To the extent that plaintiff may have exhibited some symptoms after her alleged exposure to chemical fumes and before *309September 1992, those “ ‘early symptoms [were] too isolated or inconsequential to trigger the running of the Statute of Limitations under CPLR 214-c (2)’ ” *(O’Halloran v 345 Park Co.,*251 AD2d 260, 260-261 [1998], *lv dismissed*92 NY2d 1026 [1998], quoting *DES Litig.*at 514 n 4; *see also Johnson v Exxon Corp.,*258 AD2d 946 [1999]). While plaintiff complained of shortness of breath and had intermittent coughs, her physical activities were not affected, she did not miss work until February 1993, she was not diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, her claimed injury, until June 1993, she did not stop working until July 1993 and she did not file a workers’ compensation claim until August 1993 *(compare Whitney v Quaker Chem. Corp.,*90 NY2d 845 [1997]).

Defendant also fails to establish that it did not owe plaintiff a duty of care. There is evidence that chemical spills were produced when defendant serviced the equipment at issue, that the chemical fumes were particularly intense after servicing and that plaintiff continually complained to defendant’s service representatives about the chemical odors in the darkroom where she worked. Defendant may be found to have assumed a duty of care to plaintiff on the basis of such evidence, either because it created or exacerbated a dangerous condition, or because plaintiff, a known user of the premises, detrimentally relied on its performance of its contractual obligations to her employer *(see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs.,*98 NY2d 136, 139-141 [2002]; *see Palka v Servicemaster Mgt. Servs. Corp.,*83 NY2d 579, 586-587, 589 [1994]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.
No. 10-408.

#### Glacier Electric Cooperative, Inc., Petitioner v. The Estate of Scott Sherburne, et al.

562 U.S. 1063, 131 S. Ct. 655,

178 L. Ed. 2d 481,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9306.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 686.
# C_2015363EN.01003501.xml

| 3.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel v OHIM — Tiertafel Deutschland (Tafel)

(Case T-710/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark Tafel - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - No descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 363/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: T. Koerl, E. Celenk and S. Vollmer, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially A. Pohlmann, and subsequently M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Tiertafel Deutschland eV (Rathenow, Germany) (represented by: M. Nitschke, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 October 2013 (Case R 1074/2012-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Tiertafel Deutschland eV and Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 October 2013 (Case R 1074/2012-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 October 2013 (Case R 1074/2012-4);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV;

| 3. | Orders Tiertafel Deutschland eV to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Tiertafel Deutschland eV to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stuart Grayston, President and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/ STUART GRAYSTON                    
|Stuart Grayston                        
|President (Principal Executive Officer)
|May 15, 2008                           



19
Amendment to Employment Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
  
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 September 24, 2004 
  
 VIA FACSIMILE and MAIL 
  
 Dr. David C. Collins 
 2814 Motor Avenue 
 Los Angeles, CA 90064 
  
 Dear David: 
  
 As we discussed, I informed the Compensation Committee that you had told me
that you wanted to exercise your option under Section 3 of your employment agreement to extend the term of your employment for three years. Under the circumstances, the Committee has decided to waive any requirement that your notice be in writing,
and accordingly the term of your employment agreement is now extended until September 30, 2007. 
  

	
	 Very truly yours,

	
	 /s/    THEODORE E.
GUTH        


	Theodore E. Guth


  
 TEG:lh 
 cc: W. Mathew Juechter