alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Natasha King, Respondent, v 230 Park Owners Corp. et al., Appellants.

[943 NYS2d 900] —

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated June 16, 2011, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A landowner has a duty to maintain his or her premises in a reasonably safe manner *(see Basso v Miller,*40 NY2d 233 [1976]). However, he or she has no duty to protect or warn against open and obvious conditions that are not inherently dangerous *(see Weiss v Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist.,*70 AD3d 932, 933 [2010]; *Bretts v Lincoln Plaza Assoc., Inc.,*67 AD3d 943, 944 [2009]; *Murray v Dockside 500 Mar., Inc.,*32 AD3d 832, 833 [2006]; *Cupo v Karfunkel,*1 AD3d 48, 51 [2003]).

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the condition that allegedly caused the plaintiffs injuries was open, *1080obvious, and not inherently dangerous *(see Cassone v State of New York,*85 AD3d 837, 839 [2011]; *Beck v Bethpage Union Free School Dist., 82*AD3d 1026, 1028 [2011]; *Stoppeli v Yacenda,*78 AD3d 815, 815-816 [2010]; *Mazzarelli v 54 Plus Realty Corp.,*54 AD3d 1008 [2008]). “Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers” *(Stoppeli v Yacenda,*78 AD3d at 816).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Angiolillo, J.E, Lott, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.
YOUNG MICROBRUSH, LLC

February 5, 2007

| Microbrush, Inc.1376 Cheyenne AvenueGrafton, WI 53024Attention:  Gunnar Wallin | Gunnar Wallin1376 Cheyenne AvenueGrafton, WI 53024 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
| Phillip Mark7806 Kingspointe ParkwayOrlando, FL 32819                          |                                               |

 

Dear Gunnar and Phil:

As a result of our discussions regarding the drafting mistake set forth in Section 3.4(c) of the Asset Purchase Agreement (as defined below), each of us has agreed to amend the Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Assets dated July 31, 2006, by and among Young Microbrush, LLC (“**U.S.****Buyer**”), Young Microbrush Ireland Ltd. (“**Irish Buyer**”), Microbrush, Inc. (“**U.S. Seller**”), Microbrush International, Ltd. (“**Irish Seller**”), Gunnar Wallin and Phillip Mark (the “**Asset Purchase****Agreement**”) as set forth below:

|   | o | Section 3.4(c) is deleted in its entirety and Sections 3.4(d), 3.4(e) and 3.4(f) are accordingly renumbered 3.4(c), 3.4(d) and 3.4(e), respectively. |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

If the foregoing is acceptable please sign below.

Very truly yours,

 

YOUNG MICROBRUSH, LLC

 

| By:/s/   |
|--------------------|

Its:  Vice President

 

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.2
  
  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 19 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 Goldsands Development Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter Wiget, Chief Financial 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 the best of 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/ Peter Wiget
 Peter Wiget
 Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal Financial and Principal Accounting Officer)
  Date:   May 12, 2011
  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Goldsands Development Company and will be retained by Goldsands Development Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Ansonia Realty Co., Appellant, v Ansonia Associates, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George Bundy Smith, J.), entered October 3, 1985, granting defendant-respondent’s motion to cancel a notice of pendency on condition that it post an undertaking in the sum of $2,500,000 within 30 days, unless plaintiff were to post a bond in the sum of $38,500,000 within the same 30-day period, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to fix plaintiffs undertaking at $4,000,000, and, except as thus modified, affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with Special Term’s assessment that plaintiffs likelihood of success with respect to its cause of action for specific performance, upon which the notice of pendency is based, is doubtful. In this regard, plaintiffs pivotal allegation is that defendant failed to obtain HUD’s written approval of the transfer of the property, as required by the contract of sale. In fact, however, HUD, by letter of February 13, 1985, granted its preliminary approval, subject to compliance with certain conditions, consisting in the main of requests for documentation. It is clear from the applicable HUD regulations that this preliminary written approval is the only type of approval available prior to closing. Thus, cancellation of the notice of pendency was warranted. Furthermore, the requirement of the posting of a $2,500,000 undertaking by defendant as a condition thereto was appropriate since this amount is commensurate with plaintiff’s damages to date. The undertak*528ing imposed upon plaintiff as a condition to retention of the notice of pendency, $38,500,000, representing the balance of the purchase price, is, however, totally disproportionate to any damages which defendant may suffer as a result of the continuance of the notice. In our view, an undertaking in the sum of $4,000,000 would be adequate to secure defendant in this regard pending final determination of plaintiff’s claim for specific performance should plaintiff opt to retain the notice.

We modify accordingly. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Carro and Kassal, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
                                                          Contact:  Harry Savage
                                                                  (212) 371-2200
                                                                                
                                        
                            RONALD RITTENMEYER NAMED
                       ACTING PRESIDENT, COO OF RYDER TRS

     DENVER, Colorado, October 7, 1997 -- The board of directors of Ryder TRS
Inc. announced today that Ronald A. Rittenmeyer, currently executive vice
president, has been named the interim president and chief operating officer at
the truck rental company.  Gerald R. Riordan, who had been president and COO,
has resigned to pursue other interests.

     Jay Alix will continue in his past positions as chairman and chief
executive officer of Ryder TRS.  Alix is managing principal of Questor Partners
Fund L.P., which heads an investor group that acquired Ryder TRS in the fourth
quarter of 1996 from Ryder System, Inc.

     Rittenmeyer's experience includes being vice president of operations with
the Frito Lay division of PepsiCo and COO of Burlington Northern Railroad.

     "While Ryder's positioning in the truck rental business has improved in the
past year, the board of directors has been disappointed with the rate of
progress against stated financial and operational objectives," Alix said.  "The
new owners have made substantial changes in the company and expect Ryder TRS to
take advantage of internal and external opportunities for positive change and
growth."

     "A new focus is required at the highest level of the company.  As part of
this strategy, the board of directors has asked Rittenmeyer to assume the
positions of COO and acting president to help lead the company in achieving its
goals."
<PAGE>
 
     Ryder TRS has about 32,000 vehicles in its nationwide rental system and is
the second largest truck rental firm.  Its rental fleet, which averages 34
months in age, is significantly younger than that of its major competitor.

     In addition to being the managing principal of Questor, Alix is the founder
of Jay Alix & Associates (JA&A), a turnaround and management consulting firm
with offices in New York City, Chicago and Metro Detroit.  JA&A has implemented
dozens of corporate turnarounds, including that of National Car Rental, where
Alix served as CEO for nearly two years to complete the successful turnaround
for its then-owner, General Motors Corporation.

     Questor Management Company, based in Southfield, Mich., manages Questor
Partners Fund, which was established to acquire "special situation" companies,
including the non-core divisions of Fortune 1000 corporations.
Exhibit 99.2

                                Equity One, Inc.

                              Officer's Certificate

                          Annual Statement of Servicer

     Equity One ABS, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001-3
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to the provisions of the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement for the above
captioned series (the "Agreement"),  the undersigned hereby certifies that he is
an officer of Equity One, Inc. (the "Servicer"), and does hereby further certify
that:

     1. A review of the activities of the Servicer  during the fiscal year ended
November 30, 2001 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under
his supervision; and

     2. To the best of his  knowledge,  based on such  review,  the Servicer has
fulfilled  all of its  obligations  under the Agreement  throughout  such fiscal
year.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Officer's Certificate
on behalf of the Servicer as of this 5th day of March, 2002.

                                        EQUITY ONE, INC.

                                        By: /s/ Dennis J. Lauria
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Dennis J. Lauria, Vice President
# C_2020175EN.01001702.xml

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Alcar Aktiebolag v EUIPO — Alcar Holding (alcar.se)

(Case T-77/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark alcar.se - Earlier EU word mark ALCAR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 175/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alcar Aktiebolag (Bromma, Sweden) (represented by: M. Ateva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Alcar Holding GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2018 (Case R 378/2018-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Alcar Holding and Alcar Aktiebolag.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Alcar Aktiebolag to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Alcar Aktiebolag to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.

---
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Northeast Area
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        
                Northeast Area Cities

                    Washington, D.C.
                            Newark, Delaware
                            Boston, Massachusetts
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC)
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BARC)
                            Frederick, Maryland
                            Orono, Maine
                            Geneva, New York
                            Ithaca, New York
                            University Park, Pennsylvania
                            Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
                            Kearneysville, West Virginia
                            Leetown, West Virginia
                            Burlington, Vermont


                    Civil Rights & EEO Policy StatementsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Docs





- Searchable Databases
- Datasets and Models
- Insect and Pathogen Identification
- Biocontrol FAQs 4 Kids
- BA Internet Classroom
- Harvest for the Hungry: Gleaning at Beltsville
- Weather Data

Javascript Testheadline bar Please Select the NameTraining VideosHazard Communication ManualChemical Hygiene Plan


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE
PERIOD ENDING JULY 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,313,702
<SECURITIES>                                   150,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,626,307
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,000
<INVENTORY>                                    900,702
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,147,597
<PP&E>                                         225,618
<DEPRECIATION>                                 146,595
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,226,620
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,593,184
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,628,436
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,226,620
<SALES>                                     11,981,962
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,981,962
<CGS>                                        9,545,190
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,545,190
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,238,424
<INCOME-TAX>                                   463,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            775,124
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   775,124
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17
        

</TABLE>
# C_2020054EN.01001401.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Sectorului 2 București (Romania) lodged on 1 October 2019 — IO v Impuls Leasing România IFN SA

(Case C-725/19)

(2020/C 54/17)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Sectorului 2 București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IO

Defendant: Impuls Leasing România IFN SA

Question referred

Taking into account the principle of effectiveness, is Directive 93/13/EEC (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as the Romanian legislation in force concerning the conditions under which an objection to enforcement is admissible, namely Article 713(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Law No 310/2018, pursuant to which, in the context of an objection to enforcement, the examination, at the request of the consumer or by the court acting of its own motion, of whether the terms of a leasing contract that constitutes the enforceable instrument are unfair is precluded because it is possible to bring a common law action in which a contract concluded between a ‘consumer’ and a ‘seller or supplier’ may be examined in order to determine whether it contains unfair terms within the meaning of that directive?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

---
# C_2020161EN.01001403.xml

| 11.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 10 September 2019 — Gardinia Home Decor GmbH v Hauptzollamt Ulm

(Case C-670/19)

(2020/C 161/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gardinia Home Decor GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Ulm

By order of 27 February 2020, the Court (Sixth Chamber) ruled as follows:

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, (1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010, (2) is to be interpreted as meaning that base metal curtain rods fall within tariff subheading 8302 41 90, unless those rods consist of rods, tubes or bars which have been merely cut to the required length, which is for the referring court to ascertain in order to carry out its own tariff classification of the goods at issue in the main proceedings, having regard to the information provided by the Court in response to the first question referred.

---

(1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

(2)  Regulation amending Annex I of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2010 L 284, p. 1).

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 806 

To require the Secretary of the Army to conduct levee system evaluations 

and certifications on receipt of requests from non-Federal interests. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 13, 2011 

Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. TESTER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Army to conduct levee system 

evaluations and certifications on receipt of requests from 

non-Federal interests. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rural Community 

5 Flood Protection Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RURAL COMMUNITY FLOOD PROTECTION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—On receipt of a request from a 

8 non-Federal interest, the Secretary of the Army (referred 

9 to in this section as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall conduct a levee 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 806 IS

1 system evaluation and certification of a federally author2 ized levee or a non-federally authorized levee for purposes 

3 of the National Flood Insurance Program established 

4 under chapter 1 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 

5 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4011 et seq.). 

6 (b) REQUIREMENTS.—A levee system evaluation and 

7 certification under subsection (a) shall— 

8 (1) at a minimum, comply with the require9 ments of section 65.10 of title 44, Code of Federal 

10 Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment 

11 of this Act); and 

12 (2) be carried out in accordance with such pro13 cedures as the Secretary, in consultation with the 

14 Director of the Federal Emergency Management 

15 Agency, may establish. 

16 (c) COST SHARING.— 

17 (1) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—Subject to para18 graph (2), the non-Federal share of the cost of car19 rying out a levee system evaluation and certification 

20 under this section shall be 35 percent. 

21 (2) ADJUSTMENT.—The Secretary shall adjust 

22 the non-Federal share under paragraph (1) to zero 

23 if— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 806 IS

1 (A) the non-Federal interest is located in 

2 an area with a population of 10,000 or fewer 

3 individuals; or 

4 (B) the division of the non-Federal interest 

5 with responsibility for the applicable levee is 

6 staffed by individuals operating on a volunteer 

7 basis. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS