alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### P. Zaccaro, Co., Inc., et al., Appellant, v DHA Capital, LLC, et al., Defendants, and Ding K. Wai, Also Known as John Wai, et al., Respondents.

[70 NYS3d 458]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered April 5, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the cross motion of defendants Ding K. Wai a/k/a John Wai and Sentry Operating Corp. (together, the seller) to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff P. Zaccaro, Co., Inc., a real estate broker for the seller, seeks a commission for the sale of a certain parcel of *603property. The motion court correctly dismissed the amended complaint, as Zaccaro also acted as a broker for the buyer of the property (former defendant DHA Capital, LLC), and therefore engaged in an impermissible dual agency without full disclosure (see *Douglas Elliman LLC v Tretter,*84 AD3d 446, 448 [1st Dept 2011], *affd*20 NY3d 875 [2012]).

Plaintiffs’ argument that Zaccaro was merely a finder instead of a real estate broker is unavailing. The amended complaint, which was verified by Zaccaro’s president, alleges that plaintiffs were DHA’s real estate brokers. This statement constitutes a formal judicial admission *(Bogoni v Friedlander,*197 AD2d 281, 291 [1st Dept 1994], *lv denied*84 NY2d 803 [1994]).

Furthermore, a finder has no obligation to negotiate the real estate transaction in order to obtain its fee *(Northeast Gen. Corp. v Wellington Adv.,*82 NY2d 158, 163 [1993]). Here, the amended complaint indicates that plaintiffs were obligated to negotiate the sale of the premises. In particular, the amended complaint alleges that DHA authorized plaintiffs “to act as the licensed real estate brokers along with [defendant] Nest Seekers *to the extent needed and/or requested to assist in the negotiation*of terms relating to the [sale] of the Premises between DHA and the Seller” (emphasis added). It also alleges that “DHA and/or the Seller would pay to each of the Plaintiffs and to Nest Seekers a Commission *... in consideration for the Plaintiffs*and Nest Seekers *assisting DHA in the negotiation*of the terms relating to the Sale of the Premises” (emphasis added).

Plaintiffs’ contention that the seller was not injured by Zac-caro’s dual agency is unavailing. Where, as here, the duty of undivided loyalty is breached, plaintiff broker forfeits its right to a commission, “regardless of whether damages were incurred” *(Douglas Elliman LLC v Tretter,*84 AD3d 446, 448 [1st Dept 2011], *affd*20 NY3d 875 [2012]).

Concur—Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Kapnick, Kahn, Kern, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>  1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,892,934
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         160,654
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             3,205,572
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 29,374,587
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       5,647,783
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         5,675,539
<LOANS>                                     43,477,248
<ALLOWANCE>                                    499,119
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              90,491,876
<DEPOSITS>                                  72,690,115
<SHORT-TERM>                                 5,000,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            644,046
<LONG-TERM>                                  4,200,000
<COMMON>                                     1,304,930
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,539,510
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              90,491,876
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,049,139
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,054,412
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                47,980
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,151,531
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,361,326
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             265,155
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,525,050
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              27,486
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,504,435
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                253,069
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     253,069
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   158,573
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.61
<LOANS-NON>                                    890,704
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                890,704
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               501,711
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   13,633
<RECOVERIES>                                    11,041
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              499,119
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           499,119
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### Deborah Bush, Appellant, v Stevenson Commons Associates, LLP, Esqs., Defendant. State of New York, Non-party Respondent.

[65 NYS3d 717]

In a claim, inter alia, to recover damages for housing discrimination, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Soto, J.), dated September 12, 2016, which granted the motion of nonparty State of New York to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“The Court of Claims has limited jurisdiction to hear actions *753against the State itself, or actions naming State agencies or officials as defendants, where the action is, in reality, one against the State—i.e., where the State is the real party in interest” *(Morell v Balasubramanian,*70 NY2d 297, 300 [1987]; *Borawski v Abulafia,*117 AD3d 662, 663 [2014]; *Starker v Trump Vil. Section 4, Inc.,*104 AD3d 937, 937-938 [2013]), as well as claims against a few other State-related entities as provided by statute (see *Erie Blvd. Hydropower, LP v State of New York,*90 AD3d 1292, 1293 [2011]; Public Authorities Law § 361-b; Education Law § 6224 [4]; *see also Plath v New York State Olympic Regional Dev. Auth.,*304 AD2d 885, 886-887 [2003]). Here, since the defendant is neither a State actor nor one of the State-related entities that may be sued in the Court of Claims, the Court of Claims properly directed dismissal of the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions.

Rivera, J.P., Roman, LaSalle and Bar-ros, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 12.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Jack Lawrence, certify that:      1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Corgi International Limited;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have:          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and     5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thecompany’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 asignificant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.   /s/ Jack Lawrence   Jack Lawrence
### New section on Chromium for the RTR package Ken Hustvedt to: Higgins, Cortney, nbeck 09/07/2010 03:11 PM Cc: Ann Johnson, Dave Guinnup, Dave Salman, Elaine Manning, Fred Talcott, George Woodall, Jan Tierney, Mark Morris, Mary Kissell, Paula Hirtz, Phil Mulrine, Randy Mcdonald, Rick Vetter, Sarah Mazur, Stan Durkee, Steve Shedd, Ted Palma, Tim Benner

083110 Chrome preamble.doc 

### we plan to discuss your comments tomorrow and address your comments in the next full draft we send thanks kch
AD-ID: VCDC1362000H

SPOT TITLE: Ethan B_Cool Tip_AVO2_30_URL

LENGTH: :30

AS-RECORDED SCRIPT:

ART CARD: A TIP FROM A FORMER SMOKER®

SUPER: Ethan, 59, Stroke Survivor

We see Ethan speaking to the camera. He is wearing a grey t shirt with lighter grey button up layered on top.

ETHAN: My name’s Ethan. I started smoking menthol cigarettes to be just like the cool guys in the ads.

Cut to Ethan sitting in a kitchen flipping through a magazine. 

(Pages flipping)

ETHAN: Here’s my tip. There's nothing cool about smoking and having a stroke. 

Cut to an image of Ethan on a stretcher being pulled by EMTs.

(Sirens)

Cut to Ethan speaking to camera. He is wearing a grey t shirt with lighter grey button up layered on top.

ETHAN: I guess they forgot to mention that in the ads.

ART CARD: Tobacco companies aggressively target black community with menthol ads.

ANNCR: Tobacco companies aggressively target black community with menthol ads.

ANNCR: You can quit. For free help, visit CDC.GOV/TIPS 

ART CARD: You can quit. For free help, visit CDC.GOV/TIPS

Logo/legal: CDC

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

#CDCTips
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1700]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-1182-000]


Consumers Energy Company; Notice of Filing

January 20, 1998.
    Take notice that on December 23, 1997, Consumers Energy Company 
(Consumers), tendered for filing executed service agreements for Non-
Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service pursuant to the Joint Open 
Access Transmission Service Tariff filed on December 31, 1996, by 
Consumers and The Detroit Edison Company (Detroit Edison) with the 
following transmission customers:

CMS Marketing, Services and Trading
Commonwealth Edison Company
Detroit Edison Merchant Operation
Duke Energy Trading & Marketing, LLC
Electric Clearinghouse, Inc.
Enron Power Marketing
Illinois Power Company
Louisville Gas & Electric Company
Minnesota Power & Light Company
Northern Indiana Public Service Company
NP Energy Inc.
PECO Energy Co.
Pennsylvania Power & Light Company
Public Service Electric and Gas Company
Virginia Electric and Power Company
Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.

    Copies of the filed agreements were served upon the Michigan Public 
Service Commission, Detroit Edison and the respective transmission 
customers.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests will be considered by the Commission in determining 
the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make 
protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a 
party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on 
file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1700 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 10-6089.

#### Miguel Angel Diaz, Petitioner v. Texas.

562 U.S. 1009, 131 S. Ct. 516,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8526.

178 L. Ed. 2d 381,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
No. 09-11328.

#### Willie Gene Davis, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1002, 131 S. Ct. 502,

178 L. Ed. 2d 368,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8511.

November 1, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis *369granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted.

Same case below, 598 F.3d 1259.
EXHIBIT 23.1
                         ESPEY MFG. & ELECTRONICS CORP.
                         Consent of Rotenberg & Co., LLP



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




Espey Mfg. & Electronics Corp.
Saratoga Springs, New York


      We  consent  to  the   incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  (Form S-8)  pertaining  to the 2000 and 2007 Stock  Option  Plans of
Espey Mfg. &  Electronics  Corp.  of our report dated  September  7, 2009,  with
respect to the  financial  statements  and schedules of Espey Mfg. & Electronics
Corp.  included  in its Annual  Report  (Form  10-K) for the year ended June 30,
2009, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


/s/ Rotenberg & Co., LLP

Rotenberg & Co., LLP
Rochester, New York
September 7, 2009




                                       31
No. 09-8869.

#### Lawrence Matlock, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1079, 131 S. Ct. 634,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9082.

178 L. Ed. 2d 509,

November 29, 2010.

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

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2017-0293.

#### State v. Cremeans.

Muskingum App. No, CT2016-0018, 2017-Ohio-202.
No. 10-7891.

#### James R. Niblock, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1195, 131 S. Ct. 1024,

178 L. Ed. 2d 856,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 629.

January 18, 2011.

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

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 382 Fed. Appx. 296.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          31,307
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,048
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                25,045
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     91,482
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           6,728
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             6,775
<LOANS>                                        431,931
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,466
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 630,089
<DEPOSITS>                                     531,070
<SHORT-TERM>                                     3,700
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,193
<LONG-TERM>                                     23,160
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,952
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 630,089
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 34,310
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,670
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,492
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                42,472
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              19,616
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,205
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           22,266
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    4,667
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 279
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 22,129
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (439)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        (439)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       285
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.63
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,496
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,243
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,741
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,906
<RECOVERIES>                                       606
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,466
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,466
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
2016-1813.

#### State v. Brand.

Hamilton App. No. C-150590, 2016-Ohio-7456.

Fischer, J., not participating.
EXHIBIT 23.1
 ESPEY MFG. & ELECTRONICS CORP.
 Consent of Rotenberg & Co., LLP
   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
   Espey Mfg. & Electronics Corp.
 Saratoga Springs, New York
   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8) pertaining to the 2000 and 2007 Stock Option Plans of Espey Mfg. & Electronics Corp. of our report dated September 8, 2011, with respect to the financial statements and schedules of Espey Mfg. & Electronics Corp. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2011, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
   /s/ EFP Rotenberg llp
 Rochester, New York
 September 8, 2011
#### Yongwattie Bepat et al., Respondents, v Gregory Chandler, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 731]

— In an action to recover dam-

ages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J), dated May 2, 2003, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to renew their motion for leave to enter a judgment, against the defendant upon his failure to appear or answer, and, upon renewal, granted that motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While a motion for leave to renew is generally based upon the discovery of material facts which were unknown to the movant at the time of the original motion *(see*CPLR 2221 [e] [2]), the Supreme Court has the discretion to grant renewal even upon facts known to the movant at that time *(see J. D. Structures v Waldbaum,*282 AD2d 434 [2001]). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting renewal.

Upon renewal, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant upon his failure to appear or answer. The defendant failed to present either a reasonable excuse for his default in appearing or answering or a meritorious defense *(see Miles v Blue Label Trucking,*232 AD2d 382 [1996]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.
# C_2014395EN.01004501.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 October 2014 — Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung v OHIM — Rivella International (holzmichel)

(Case T-263/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark holzmichel - Earlier international figurative marks Michel and Michel POWER - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2014/C 395/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung GmbH (Sohland an der Spree, Germany) (represented by: A. Weiß, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Rivella International AG (Rothrist, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and A. Coordes, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 February 2013 (Case R 1968/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Rivella International AG and Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

---