alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stacey Casey, Respondent, v Ridge Associates, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 701]

Crew III, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Castellino, J.), entered October 4, 2002 in Chemung County, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff was hired by the Schuyler Street Association as a maintenance worker for the Falls Home, an adult care facility operated by the Association located in the Village of Montour Falls, Schuyler County. The Association is a partnership composed of James Vitale, Joseph Vitale, Jr. and Ronald Derring. Defendant, which operates an adult assisted living center known as Seneca Lake Terrace located in the City of Geneva, Ontario County, is a partnership consisting of the above-named partners and, additionally, Christopher Vitale and Paul Vitale.

In July 1999, the administrator of the Falls Home sent plaintiff to Seneca Lake Terrace for the purpose of assisting in the construction of that facility. While assisting in the installation of heating vents and fans, plaintiff fell from a ladder and was injured. As a consequence, plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover damages pursuant to Labor Law § 240. Following joinder of issue, plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability and defendant cross-moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that plaintiffs sole remedy was workers’ compensation inasmuch as he was a “special employee” of defendant. Supreme Court denied both motions and defendant appeals.

We affirm. It is axiomatic that one in the general employ of an organization may become a special employee of another, and whether a worker has become a special employee is generally a question of fact to be determined at trial *(see Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp.,*78 NY2d 553, 557 [1991]). Here, there are a number of issues to be determined at trial, not the least of which is the credibility of the affiants who were supervising plaintiff at the time of the accident and claim that, in so doing, they were acting solely in their capacity as partners of defendant. Inasmuch as the affiants were partners in both the As*1146sociation that operated the Falls Home and defendant, Supreme Court quite properly observed that their affidavits were “self-serving” necessitating a credibility determination by a jury.

Cardona, P.J., Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
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 September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stuart H. 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 H. GRAYSTON                                                      
|Stuart H. Grayston
President (Principal Executive Officer)
November 12, 2010
<PAGE>
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


The undersigned officer of Veridien Corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies
to my knowledge that the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the on date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and
shall not be deemed to be part of the Report or "filed" for any purpose
whatsoever.


Date:  August 14, 2003              Name: /s/ Sheldon C. Fenton
                                          -----------------------------
                                          Sheldon C. Fenton
                                          Title: Chief Executive Officer

                                       23
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 28, 2020

t1222

Order 

Clerk

December 28, 2020

161513

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 161513

COA: 347400

Wayne CC: 18-000425-FC

ROBERT YARBROUGH, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 30, 2020 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the 

case of People v Kabongo (Docket No. 159346) is pending on appeal before this Court 

and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for 

leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the 

decision in that case.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-
52782 and 33-63602, and Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement
Nos. 33-53563 and 33-53563-01 of Duquesne Light Company on Form S-3 of our
report dated January 28, 1997, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Duquesne Light Company for the year ended December 31, 1996.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 27, 1997
Exhibit 23 - Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Edison Brothers Stores, Inc. of our report dated March 14, 1997, included in
the 1996 Annual Report to Stockholders of Edison Brothers Stores, Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Edison Brothers
Stores, Inc. listed in Item 14(a).  This schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits.  In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above,
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Number 33-13297) pertaining to the Edison Brothers Stores, Inc. 1986
Stock Option Plan and (Form S-8 Number 33-54754) pertaining to the Edison
Brothers Stores, Inc. 1992 Stock Option Plan and the related Prospectuses of
our report dated March 14, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements incorporated herein, by reference, and our report included in the
preceding paragraph with respect to its financial statements and schedule
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Edison Brothers Stores, Inc. for
the year ended February 1, 1997.

St. Louis, Missouri
May 1, 1997


ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 12:02 PM

To: Cohen, Daniel; Cymbalsky, John

Cc: Barhydt, Laura; Armstrong, Ashley Subject: Request for information

Dear Mr. Cohen and Mr. Cymbalsky,

Engineered Air is looking into third party testing. ETL, AHRI and CSA all have energy efficiency verification programs. These programs test to AHRI 340/360, or whatever the applicable test standard

is, with ETL doing the testing. These programs test a base model. As long as the base model testing meets the EER's in the standard then the equipment can bear an energy verification label. This would apply to basically any DX unit. The energy verification label that these agencies use seems to be the only way to prove a device me ets the federal standard. The DOE regulations are not more stringent than ASHRAE 90.1 they simply apply to a broader scope of equipment applications.

The standard references AHRI standards 210/240, 340/360, 310/380 and ISO 13256

- 1 (1998) as the applicab le test standards depending on the type of equipment being referenced. This covers air cooled, water cooled, heat pumps and evaporatively cooled air conditioners. This would cover most outdoor equipment. Based on our previous discussions there are no exem ptions to the standard. Also vertical packaged air conditioners are covered under the standard even though there is no test standard

referenced.

Items not covered by the standard would be things like commercial dehumidifiers which are not listed and

are covered under AHRI 910 test standard and units covered by AHRI test standards 325 and 365 since these test standards do not apply to unitary equipment. We need to verify that this is correct in order to determine a scope for the testing agency. I just need to know that this approach is basically correct.

The testing agencies are convinced that using their test model we can label most DX cooling units to meet the EER's in the standard. ASHRAE 90.1 says that wherever the equipment is used to heat,

ventilate or air

- condition then the specified EER's need to be met (Scope 2.2 b). The issues we need clarification on are: 1) units where centrifugal condenser fans are required the specified EER's cannot be met due to the motor horsepower required on the condenser fan;2) in applications where the DX unit

functions without ANY regard to the comfort of the occupants the EER's may not be met. and 3) since DOE regulations are broader than ASHRAE 90.1 that the DOE intends to enforce the EPCA as

amended.

Any guidanc e you can give would be appreciated,

Ric Rambacher

President Engineered Air
# DLA Aviation Internal Review Office maintains accountability of internal and external audit processes

/ Published Feb. 19, 2016
RICHMOND, Virginia, 
The Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Internal Review Office (IRO) in Richmond, Virginia oversees all audits, maintains accountability, and manages information flow regarding external and internal audits. 

Their mission is, through implementation of process excellence and strategic engagement, to improve the effectiveness and efficiencies of local programs and operations which contribute to the warfighting customers of DLA.

The IRO solidifies processes and continuous accountability by emphasizing the importance of following procedures established in the DLA memorandum which states that all audit announcements will come through the IRO’s external audit liaison mailbox and then routed from the IRO to the commander, deputy commander, and chief of staff for situational awareness and to ensure leadership is provided non-partisan, professional capability to monitor risks and to evaluate real-time operations and controls.

DLA Aviation’s Command Support Directorate’s Lorraine Jenkins, manager, I R O, reminds employees to refer to the guidelines in the DLA Aviation commander’s recent External/Internal Audit Procedures Memorandum January 2016 for procedures to follow if an auditor calls for information. 

Jenkins said it is important for employees to follow the processes in place to ensure that the evidential matter will be appropriately documented, encrypted, secured, and responded to in an accurate and timely manner. 

Many times, DoD auditors from other agencies contact DLA employees directly Jenkins said there is a protocol to follow when contacted by auditors. “If an auditor contacts an employee directly, the employee should take their name, the organization they are from, phone number, email information and send it immediately to the IRO external audit liaison mailbox so they can set up a time for the interview,” she said. “This will also prevent disruption of the daily workflow and will ensure the correct subject matter expert is available to answer any questions or provide any documents requested by the auditors.” 

Jenkins said the memorandum also states that directorate stakeholders respond timely to the IRO as requested, to all emails, meeting invitations, teleconferences, and requests for points of contacts to make sure that audit workflow stays on track. Stakeholders should also prepare responses as required and forward findings, results, and documentations by email to the IRO.

The memorandum further states, DLA Aviation recognizes the impact of maintaining effective internal audit functions and places emphasis on enhancing governance transparency and effective internal controls. 

By following the DLA objectives of developing a disciplined approach in maintaining transparency and by following the processes in place, which help to perform more efficiently and effectively, we will continue to sustain auditability while staying on focus in serving our most important customer, the warfighter.
#### In the Matter of Marie S.C., Respondent, v Jamal Benjamin B., Appellant.

[66 NYS3d 877]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Carol Goldstein, J.), entered on or about September 23, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, denied respondent father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s denial of the father’s motion to vacate a support order that was entered upon his default in 2008, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the father’s motion to vacate his default, as the motion was untimely (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of the City of N.Y. v Juan H.M.,*128 AD3d 501 [1st Dept 2015]). The father brought his motion more than six years after it had been entered against him, despite his actual knowledge that the order was outstanding. The clerk’s mailing of the order to the father’s address as stated on the record constituted sufficient notice to render the father’s motion untimely (128 AD3d at 501).

Even if the father’s motion to vacate the default order were timely, the father’s motion still fails on the merits, as he failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious defense *(see Matter of Rickelme Alfredo B. [Ricardo Alfred B.],*132 AD3d 490, 490 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur—Acosta, P.J., Sweeny, Gische, Andrias and Gesmer, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                EATON CORPORATION
                         2007 ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
                                   ITEM 15(B)
                                  EXHIBIT 32.2
                                  CERTIFICATION

This written statement is submitted in accordance with Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. It accompanies Eaton Corporation's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 ("10-K Report").

I hereby certify that, based on my knowledge, the 10-K Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C 78m), and information contained in the 10-K Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Eaton Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries.


Date: February 26, 2008                 /s/ Richard H. Fearon
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Richard H. Fearon
                                        Executive Vice President -
                                        Chief Financial and Planning Officer
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Lance Duncan; BHB Operating, Inc.; * From the 70th District Court

and Mark IV Energy Holdings, LLC, of Ector County,

f/k/a Mark III Energy Holdings, LLC, Trial Court No. A-16-05-0551-CV.

Vs. No. 11-17-00283-CV * October 19, 2017

Gerald B. Hindy; Assemblies of God * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

Financial Services Group, d/b/a AG (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., 

Financial Solutions; and Steward Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

Energy Fund, LLC,

This court has considered BHB Operating, Inc.’s motion to dismiss this 

appeal as to BHB Operating, Inc. only and concludes that the motion should be 

granted. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the appeal is 

dismissed as to BHB Operating, Inc. only. The costs incurred by reason of the 

dismissed portion of this appeal are taxed against BHB Operating, Inc.
No. 09-11255.

#### Bruce Pettiford, Petitioner v. David W. Pitkins, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Laurel Highlands, et al.

562 U.S. 870, 131 S. Ct. 169,

178 L. Ed. 2d 100,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6577.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Exhibit 10.19 

 

**Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc.**

**Directors’ Fees and Plans**

(approved 2/26/04) 

 

Directors who are employees ofDuquesne Light Holdings or any of our affiliates are not compensated for their Board service. 

 

Directors who are not employees are compensated for their Board service by a combination of cash and an annual grant of Common Stock. The cash component consists of an annual Board retainer of $24,000, payable intwelve monthly installments, and a fee of $1,000 for each Board, Committee or ad hoc meeting attended. The Board Chair is not compensated for attending Committee meetings. The stock component consists of an annual grant of 2,500 restricted shares ordeferred stock units (which vest over two years) for each Director, plus annual grants of stock (which may be deferred in the form of deferred stock units at the recipient’s option) in the following amounts: $30,000 to the Board Chair; $15,000to the Vice Chair; and $5,000 to each Committee chairperson. 

 

Each non-employee Director under the age of 72 may elect to defer receipt of a percentage of his or her Director’s remuneration until after termination of service as a Director. Deferred compensation may be received in one to tenannual installments commencing the year designated by the Director. Interest accrues quarterly on all deferred compensation at a rate equal to a specified bank’s prime lending rate. 

 

For Directors elected prior to June 1, 2003, we have a Charitable Giving Program funded by company-owned life insurancepolicies on the Directors. Upon the death of a Director, we donate up to $500,000, payable in ten equal annual installments, to a maximum of ten qualifying charitable or educational organizations recommended by the Director and reviewed and approvedby the Employment and Community Relations Committee and the Board. A Director must have Board service of 60 months or more in order to qualify for the full donation amount, with service of less than 60 months qualifying for a pro-rated donation. Theprogram does not result in any material cost to us. 

 

We provideBusiness Travel Insurance to our non-employee directors as part of our Business Travel Insurance Plan for Management Employees. In the event of accidental death or dismemberment, benefits of up to $400,000 per individual are provided. The programdoes not result in any material cost to us. 

 

Directors canparticipate in the Duquesne Light Company College Matching Gift Program, which provides a dollar-for-dollar match of a gift of cash or securities (up to a maximum of $5,000 per donor per calendar year) to an accredited, nonprofit, non-proprietary,degree-granting college, university, or junior college located within the United States or one of its possessions which is recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions. The program does not result inany material cost to us.
#### People v Bethea

2d Dept: 145 AD3d 738 (Kings)

denied 3/3/17 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16970]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

ACTION: Notice of reporting requirements submitted for review.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
agency has made such a submission.

DATE: Comments should be submitted on or before July 27, 1998. If you 
intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise 
the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.

COPIES: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and 
other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the 
Agency Clearance Officer. Submit comments to the Agency Clearance 
Officer and the OMB Reviewer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Agency Clearance Officer: Jacqueline 
White, Small Business Administration, 409 3RD Street, S.W., 5th Floor, 
Washington, D.C. 20416, Telephone: (202) 205-6629.
    OMB Reviewer: Victoria Wassmer, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive 
Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.
    Title: Financial statement of debtor.
    Form No: 770.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Description of Respondents: Recipients of SBA Loans.
    Annual Responses: 161,000.
    Annual Burden: 281,750.
Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. 98-16970 Filed 6-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P