alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Margarita Martinez, Respondent, v Asta Surgical Chemists, Inc., Doing Business as Dale Chemists, Respondent, and Franciscan Construction Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[943 NYS2d 784] —

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Franciscan Construction Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), entered December 2, 2010, as denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover damages for common-law negligence and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The defendant Franciscan Construction Corp. (hereinafter the appellant) failed to make a prima facie showing that it did not create the alleged hazardous condition that caused the *1084plaintiff to slip and fall *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Van Dina v St. Francis Hosp., Roslyn, N.Y.,*45 AD3d 673 [2007]; *Dugan v Crown Broadway, LLC,*33 AD3d 656, 657 [2006]; *Avellino v TrizecHahn Newport,*5 AD3d 519 [2004]). Since the appellant failed to meet its initial burden, it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the opposition papers *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; *Willis v New York Racing Assn., Inc.,*9 AD3d 406 [2004]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the appellant’s motion which were for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover damages for common-law negligence and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.
# C_2021088EN.01002701.xml

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — Turk Hava Yollari v EUIPO — Sky (skylife)

(Case T-382/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark skylife - Earlier EU word mark SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 88/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Turk Hava Yollari AO (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sky Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Brackenbury, Solicitor, and A. Zalewska, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 April 2019 (Case R 880/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Sky and Turk Hava Yollari.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Turk Hava Yollari AO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Sky Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Turk Hava Yollari AO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Sky Ltd.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---
Exhibit 32.1







CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





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 Annual Report of American Commerce Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended February 28, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank D. Puissegur, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.





Date:  May 31, 2011
By:
/s/ Frank D. PuissegurFrank D. PuissegurChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) and Director
---

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 New Jersey Mining
Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Fred W. Brackebusch, President, Treasurer and Director of New
Jersey Mining Company, certify, 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;
  and                                   
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                                 
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Date: May 14, 2010

By /s/ FRED W. BRACKEBUSCHFred W. Brackebusch,
President, Treasurer & Director

---
[Cite as Johnson v. Office Healthcare Facilities Servs., 2021-Ohio-4181.]

{¶1} On October 7, 2021, a Special Master issued a Report and 

Recommendation in this public-records case. The Special Master recommends the 

following: (1) dismissal of a claim for production of records as moot, (2) a finding that 

Respondent failed to produce a requested record within a reasonable period of time in 

violation of R.C. 149.43(B)(1), (3) a finding that Requester is entitled to recover from 

Respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs 

associated with the action that Requester has incurred, and (4) assessment of costs to 

Respondent. 

{¶2} Neither party has timely filed written objections to the Report and 

Recommendation, as permitted by R.C. 2743.75(F)(2). Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), 

if neither party timely objects to a special master’s report and recommendation, then this 

Court is required to “promptly issue a final order adopting the report and 

recommendation, unless it determines that there is an error of law or other defect 

evident on the face of the report and recommendation.” 

{¶3} The Court determines that there is no error of law or other defect evident on 

the face of the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation of October 7, 2021. The 

Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. Requester is entitled to recover from 

Respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs 

TAMEKA L. JOHNSON 

 Requester 

 v. 

OFFICE HEALTHCARE FACILITIES 

SERVICES 

 Respondent 

Case No. 2021-00240PQ 

Judge Patrick E. Sheeran 

JUDGMENT ENTRY 
Case No. 2021-00240PQ -2- JUDGMENT ENTRY 

associated with the action that are incurred by Requester, but Requester is not entitled 

to recover attorney fees. Court costs are assessed to Respondent. Judgment is 

rendered in favor of Requester. The Clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this 

judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. 

 

 PATRICK E. SHEERAN 

 Judge 

Filed October 26, 2021 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 11/29/21
# C_2020262EN.01002102.xml

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Dermavita v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM)

(Case T-104/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark JUVÉDERM - Genuine use of the mark - Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark was registered - Use in the form in which the mark was registered - Use with the proprietor’s consent - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2020/C 262/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dermavita Co. Ltd (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: G. Paricheva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Zajfert, J. Crespo Carrillo, H. O’Neill and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Allergan Holdings France (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor, and T. de Haan, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2018 (Case R 2630/2017-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Dermavita and Allergan Holdings France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dermavita Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dermavita Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

| 3. | Orders Allergan Holdings France to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Allergan Holdings France to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---
#### Marine Midland Bank, N. A., Appellant, v Charmant Travel Lodge, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Gerald J. Cimorelli, Respondent.

In an action, *inter alia,*to foreclose a mortgage, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Isseks, J.), dated April 4, 1984, as denied its cross motion to dismiss defendant Gerald J. Cimorelli’s answer and counterclaim, and to proceed against him for a deficiency judgment.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Plaintiff’s application to proceed against Gerald J. Cimorelli (hereinafter defendant) for a deficiency judgment was properly denied since it was not disputed that the application was not made within 90 days after consummation of the sale as is required by RPAPL 1371. Special Term also correctly determined that the remainder of plaintiff’s cross motion sought to dismiss defendant’s severed answer and counterclaim for failure *909to state a cause of action. As such, the cross motion was properly denied where the pleading was, on its face, adequate to withstand such a cross motion. On appeal, our inquiry is limited to whether the pleadings state any cause of action, and not to whether there is any evidentiary support for defendant’s counterclaim. Also, the pleadings must be construed in the light most favorable to defendant, and all of his factual allegations must be accepted as true *(see, e.g., Holly v Pennysaver Corp.,*98 AD2d 570, 572; *Guggenheimer v Ginzburg,*43 NY2d 268, 275). The arguments raised by plaintiff on its cross motion to dismiss would be more appropriately reserved for a motion for summary judgment. Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
# C_2019399EN.01006801.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/68

---

Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Souruh v Council

(Case T-137/19) (1)

(Action for damages - Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds - Lack of jurisdiction)

(2019/C 399/85)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Jaume and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018, amending Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018, L 131, p. 16), and its subsequent implementing acts, and following Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019, amending Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Souruh SA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Souruh SA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

---
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Joan Katzeff, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc for the year ended December 31, 2006;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13(a)-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure
controls and procedures presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: April 2, 2007
|                    | 
|By:                 |  | /s/ Joan Katzeff       
|                    |  | Joan Katzeff, President
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James V. Masone, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered May 7, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Evidence concerning defendant’s possession of stolen property not charged in the instant indictment was properly admitted at trial on the issue of defendant’s intent. In contrast to crimes such as assault and robbery, the mere act of possessing stolen property is equivocal, and the underlying intent to benefit the *190defendant “or a person other than an owner thereof or to impede the recovery by an owner” is not easily inferred (Penal Law §§ 165.45, 165.50; *cf. People v Dales,*309 NY 97, 101; *People v Molineux,*168 NY 264, 297-298). The intent to commit criminal possession of stolen property is “presumed” from knowing possession (Penal Law § 165.55 [1]), and, therefore, a defendant’s knowledge that the property is stolen is directly probative of his intent. Here the defendant was charged in the indictment with possession of five electric mobile radios from a larger group stolen from the New York City Department of Transportation, as well as various items stolen from Buckingham Leather, Ltd. His taped conversations concerning disposition of the radios remaining after sale of the five mentioned in the indictment were probative of his knowledge that the entire group of radios, including those five, were stolen. The degree of probativeness of this evidence outweighed any potential for prejudice *(see, People v Ventimiglia,*52 NY2d 350, 359-360). Defendant’s statement to an undercover investigator that the coat he was wearing was not from the Buckingham Leather burglary was also admissible on the same ground, to show that he knew the various items from Buckingham Leather, Ltd., were stolen.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions, and find them to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 38 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns 

3 on any day from Thursday, March 29, 2012, through Sun4 day, April 1, 2012, on a motion offered pursuant to this 

5 concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his des6 ignee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on 

7 Monday, April 16, 2012, or such other time on that day 

8 as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee 

9 in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of 

10 any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 

11 resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the 

12 House adjourns on any legislative day through Friday, 

13 April 13, 2012, on a motion offered pursuant to this con14 current resolution by its majority leader or his designee, 

15 it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, April 16, 

16 2012, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to sec17 tion 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. 

18 SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the 

19 Speaker of the House, or their respective designees, acting 
2 

†SCON 38 ES 

1 jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the 

2 Senate and the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify 

3 the Members of the Senate and House, respectively, to re4 assemble at such place and time as they may designate 

5 if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. 

Passed the Senate March 29, 2012. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 38 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess 

of Representatives. of the Senate and an adjournment of the House
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 13.1

                               SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS


Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, John A. Jacobson,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Offshore Systems International Ltd., do
hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that:

         -        the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended November 30,
                  2003 of Offshore Systems International Ltd. fully complies
                  with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
                  Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

         -        the information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of Offshore Systems International Ltd.

Date: May 25/04
                                                   /s/ John A. Jacobson
                                           -------------------------------------
                                                     John A. Jacobson
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

                                      417

<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 13.2

                           SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, John T. Sentjens,
Corporate Controller of Offshore Systems International Ltd., do hereby certify,
based on my knowledge, that:

         -        the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended November 30,
                  2003 of Offshore Systems International Ltd. fully complies
                  with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
                  Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

         -        the information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of Offshore Systems International Ltd.

Date: May 25/04
                                                          /s/ John T. Sentjens
                                                        ------------------------
                                                            John T. Sentjens
                                                          Corporate Controller


                                      418