alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Emil SZAFRAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SANDATA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-3560-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 2, 2011.

Sanford F. Young, Law Offices of Sanford F. Young, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Martin D. Edel, Miller & Wrubel P.C., New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, CHESTER J. STRAUB, and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

On May 11, 2009, the District Court entered judgment for Plaintiff Emil Sza-fran (“Szafran”) on Szafran’s contract claim and for Sandata Technologies, Inc. (“Sandata”) on his *quantum meruit*claim. On February 3, 2010, the District Court vacated the jury award as to damages on the contract claim. On June 3, 2010, the District Court entered an order vacating the judgment of May 11, 2009 and reopening the case. On August 13, 2010, the District Court entered a final judgment “in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant on the breach of contract claim in the amount of $60,000, inclusive of any and all interests, costs and disbursements to date.”

From the representations of counsel for both parties, as well as from the fact that the District Court “so-ordered” a stipulation that expressly recognized the parties’ intent to bring about “a final Judgment from which an appeal can be taken,” we infer that the District Court intended its August 13, 2010 order to enter final judgment on all claims brought by Szafran against Sandata. However, to make this clear beyond cavil, this case is remanded to the District Court with leave to amend the final judgment of August 13, 2010, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a), by inserting the following after the words “disbursements to date”: “and in favor of the defendant on the *quantum meruit*claim and the New York labor law claim.” Ju*60risdiction will be restored to this panel when either party informs us by letter that the final judgment of August 13, 2010 has been amended as discussed herein. *See United States v. Jacobson,*15 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir.1994).
# C_2019213EN.01002201.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/22

---

Appeal brought on 29 April 2019 by Almashreq Investment Fund against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2019 in Case T-415/16 Almashreq Investment Find v Council

(Case C-349/19 P)

(2019/C 213/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Almashreq Investment Fund (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court should:

| — | Declare the appeal admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

| — | Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 28 February 2019 (T-415/16); |
| --- | --- |

—

Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 28 February 2019 (T-415/16);

And, giving judgment itself,

| — | Annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 (1) and its subsequent implementing acts, in so far as they concern the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 (1) and its subsequent implementing acts, in so far as they concern the appellant;

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law in that the General Court disregarded the applicant’s right, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be heard prior to the adoption of new restrictive measures.

The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law and distortion of the facts in that the General Court disregarded the items submitted by the applicant in support of its action for annulment to demonstrate that it did not support the Syrian regime.

The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law in so far as the General Court did not hold that Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, according to which membership of the Al-Assad or Makhlouf families constitutes an autonomous criterion justifying the imposition of sanctions, were illegal and in so far as it, on the same occasion, reversed the burden of proof.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125).

---
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Michael Konti, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority, Appellant. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Kane, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed August 1, 1984.

Claimant, employed at a power station of the New York City Transit Authority, sustained a fractured cheek bone and injuries to his right eye when he was mugged in the subway station, some 200 yards from his specific duty station, at about 11:50 p.m. on September 9, 1980.

We agree with the determination of the Workers’ Compensation Board that claimant was in the precincts of his employment at the time of the incident in question, particularly since he was provided with a subway pass for use going to and from work (see, *Matter of Husted v Seneca Steel Serv.,*41 NY2d 140).

Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                          15,347
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   17,346
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     21,223
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                54,407
<PP&E>                          26,867
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  81,274
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           35,253
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        13
<OTHER-SE>                      22,576
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    81,274
<SALES>                         53,565
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                53,565
<CGS>                           40,545
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   40,545
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                6,826
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              1,025
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 5,515
<INCOME-TAX>                    877
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             5,638
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    2,455
<EPS-BASIC>                   .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .19



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED INTERIM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ROSE HILLS COMPANY AND
SUBSIDIARIES, FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,108
<SECURITIES>                                         0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,177
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,570
<INVENTORY>                                        849
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,102
<PP&E>                                         144,728
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,231
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 314,687
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,843
<BONDS>                                         80,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0   
<PREFERRED>                                          0  
<COMMON>                                             0   
<OTHER-SE>                                     129,554
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   314,687
<SALES>                                         35,866
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,866
<CGS>                                            7,401
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,401
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,527
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,013
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,158
<INCOME-TAX>                                       550
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0   
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0   
<CHANGES>                                            0   
<NET-INCOME>                                       608
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .608  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .608
        

</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 234/2023

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 234 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 663 July 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 234

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 663 July 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2023/C 234/01 | Euro exchange rates – 30 June 2023 | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2023/C 234/01

Euro exchange rates – 30 June 2023

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2023/C 234/02 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11118 – MACQUARIE / PMV / KEVLINX) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2023/C 234/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11178 – ASTARA MOBILITY / NISSAN AUSTRIA / NISSAN POLAND) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2023/C 234/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11175 – IBERDROLA / GIC / NEOENERGIA TRANSMISSORA) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 6 |
| 2023/C 234/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11108 – MERIDIAM / AWSA I / AWSA II / A2 ROUTE / AESA) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 8 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2023/C 234/02

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11118 – MACQUARIE / PMV / KEVLINX) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

2

2023/C 234/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11178 – ASTARA MOBILITY / NISSAN AUSTRIA / NISSAN POLAND) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

4

2023/C 234/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11175 – IBERDROLA / GIC / NEOENERGIA TRANSMISSORA) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

6

2023/C 234/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11108 – MERIDIAM / AWSA I / AWSA II / A2 ROUTE / AESA) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

8

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| | Corrigendum to Prior notification of a concentration (Case M. 11115 – ADNOC / ÖBAG / OMV) – Candidate case for simplified procedure ( OJ C 226, 28.6.2023 ) | 10 |

Corrigenda

Corrigendum to Prior notification of a concentration (Case M. 11115 – ADNOC / ÖBAG / OMV) – Candidate case for simplified procedure ( OJ C 226, 28.6.2023 )

( OJ C 226, 28.6.2023 )

10

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit
10.6a
 
 AMENDMENTS
TO THE
 CHANGE
IN CONTROL SEVERANCE AGREEMENT
 BETWEEN
 IMPERIAL
CAPITAL BANCORP, INC. AND NORVAL L. BRUCE
 TO
COMPLY WITH
 INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE SECTION 409A
 
  WHEREAS,
on February 1, 2006, Norval L. Bruce entered into a Change in Control Severance
Agreement with Imperial Capital Bancorp, Inc. (formerly known as ITLA Capital
Corporation) (the “Agreement”); and
  WHEREAS,
the Agreement includes an election provision that may provide for deferred
compensation and therefore must be amended to comply with Section 409A of the
Internal Revenue Code and the regulations and guidance of general applicability
issued thereunder; and
  WHEREAS,
the Agreement may be amended by a writing signed by the parties to the
Agreement.
  NOW,
THEREFORE, the foregoing considered, it is agreed as follows:
  That
effective as of January 1, 2005, the Agreement is amended by revising Paragraph
3(a)(2) to read as follows:
  “(2)  a
sum equal to 24 times the monthly premium cost being paid by the Company to
provide such health, dental and life insurance benefits as are maintained for
the Employee on the Date of Termination, with the monthly premium cost being
determined immediately prior to the Date of Termination;”
  IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed this 31st day of December,
2008, effective as of January 1, 2005.
   IMPERIAL
CAPITAL BANCORP, INC.
  By:            /s/ Jeffrey L.
Lipscomb
  NORVAL L.
BRUCE
  By:            /s/ Norval L.
Bruce
EXHIBIT 23.2

              INFORMATION REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

         Section  11(a)  of  the   Securities  Act  of  1933,  as  amended  (the
"Securities Act"), provides that if part of a registration statement at the time
it becomes effective contains an untrue statement of a material fact, or omits a
material fact required to be stated  therein or necessary to make the statements
therein  not  misleading,  any  person  acquiring  a security  pursuant  to such
registration statement (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition
such person knew of such untruth or omission) may assert a claim against,  among
others, an accountant who has consented to be named as having certified any part
of the  registration  statement  or as having  prepared  any  report  for use in
connection with the registration statement.

         In June of 2002,  Arthur  Andersen LLP  ("Andersen")  was  convicted of
obstructing  justice,  which  is a  felony  offense.  The  SEC  prohibits  firms
convicted of a felony from auditing public companies. Andersen is thus unable to
consent to the  incorporation  by reference of the  Company's  previously  filed
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-61572,  333-65673 and
333-57742) and Andersen's audit report with respect to Young Innovations, Inc.'s
consolidated  financial statements as of December 31, 2001 and for the two years
in the  period  then  ended.  Under  these  circumstances,  Rule 437a  under the
Securities  Act permits  Young  Innovations,  Inc. to file this Annual Report on
Form 10-K, which is incorporated by reference into the Registration  Statements,
without  a  written  consent  from  Andersen.  As  a  result,  with  respect  to
transactions in Young Innovations,  Inc. securities pursuant to the Registration
Statements that occur  subsequent to the date this Annual Report on Form 10-K is
filed with the  Securities and Exchange  Commission,  Andersen will not have any
liability under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of
a material fact contained in the financial statements audited by Andersen or any
omissions of a material fact  required to be stated  therein.  Accordingly,  you
would be unable to assert a claim  against  Andersen  under Section 11(a) of the
Securities Act.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-87691) pertaining to the 1993 Incentive Stock Option Plan, the 1996
Stock Option Plan and the 1999 Stock Option Plan of Technology Flavors &
Fragrances, Inc. of our report dated February 28, 2000, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Technology Flavors & Fragrances, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31,
1999.


                                              /S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Melville, New York
March 29, 2000
# C_2019082EN.01006901.xml

| 4.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/69

---

Action brought on 21 January 2019 — Cimpress Schweiz v EUIPO — Impress Media (CIMPRESS)

(Case T-37/19)

(2019/C 82/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Cimpress Schweiz GmbH (Winterthur, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Eckhartt, P. Böhner and A. von Mühlendahl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Impress Media GmbH (Mönchengladbach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the mark at issue: Applicant

Mark at issue: EU word mark CIMPRESS — EU mark No 13 147 624

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 October 2018 in Joined Cases R 1716/2017-2 and R 1786/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | on the applicant’s appeal, annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 13 June 2017 in Case B 2 493 933 and reject the opposition brought by Impress Media GmbH against registration of the mark CIMPRESS No 13 147 624; |
| --- | --- |

—

on the applicant’s appeal, annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 13 June 2017 in Case B 2 493 933 and reject the opposition brought by Impress Media GmbH against registration of the mark CIMPRESS No 13 147 624;

| — | order EUIPO and Impress Media GmbH, should it intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Impress Media GmbH, should it intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### Fred Borakove, Appellant, v Irma Borakove, Also Known as Irma Lederer, Respondent.

In a matrimonial action in which the plaintiff husband had previously been awarded a judgment of divorce from the defendant wife, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Oppido, J.), dated April 5, 1985, as awarded the defendant counsel fees in connection with plaintiff’s unsuccessful appeal from an earlier order of the same court (Christ, J.), entered March 11, 1983, which denied his motion to modify the judgment of divorce so as to award custody of the parties’ child to him, and to vacate the provision requiring him to pay child support.

Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Special Term erroneously awarded appellate counsel fees to *684the defendant wife on the sole basis that she had been the successful respondent in a matrimonial appeal. Domestic Relations Law § 237 (b) places an award on counsel fees "in the court’s discretion, [as] justice requires, having regard to the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties”. We have previously interpreted such language to require the court in its exercise of discretion to "consider the relative merits of the parties and their respective financial situations” *(Martin v Martin,*28 AD2d 897). Thus, in rendering an award of counsel fees, the "court must consider the financial circumstances of both parties” *(Morocco v Morocco, 53*AD2d 707, 708). In this regard, the "sufficiency” of one spouse’s financial means will not, standing alone, preclude an award of counsel fees *(see, Goldsmith v Goldsmith, 56*AD2d 834; *Ross v Ross,*47 AD2d 866; *Press v Press,*49 AD2d 603). In *Goldsmith*we did no more than affirm our rule under Domestic Relations Law § 237 that it is not "mandatory that financial need be proved” *(Martin v Martin, supra).*Indeed, in *Goldsmith*we focused our attention on the merits of the respondent’s position on the prior appeal because her financial entitlement to an award of counsel fees had already been determined in the trial of the action *(see, Goldsmith v Goldsmith, 52*AD2d 616; *cf. Mittman v Mittman,*30 AD2d 867, *affd*24 NY2d 826). Accordingly, *Goldsmith*did not represent a departure from prior law mandating consideration of both the merits and respective financial positions of the parties. Special Term erred in awarding appellate counsel fees based on defendant’s successful defense of a prior appeal without considering the parties’ relative financial positions. Accordingly, we remit for a hearing to consider the appropriate standard. Additionally, if it is determined at the hearing that defendant is entitled to an award of counsel fees, plaintiff may "challenge the value and extent of counsel’s claimed services” *(Jerman v Jerman,*80 AD2d 825, 826). Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
#### PREDIGESTED FOOD CO. v. SCOTT et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 7, 1898.)

1. Depositions—Commission.

Under Code Civ. Proe. § 887, *the*witnesses, not within the state, to be examined by commission, must be named therein.

2. Same—Open Commissions.

Open commissions, upon the part of a plaintiff, to examine witnesses out of the state, will not be granted, except under peculiar circumstances, and only upon the strongest and most convincing reasons.

Appeal from special term.

' Action by the Predigested Food Company against Alfred B. Scott and Samuel W. Bowne. From an order denying a motion of plaintiff for a commission to examine, upon oral questions, certain witnesses named, and such other witnesses as might be produced by either party, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BARRETT, RUMSEY,

McLaughlin, and patterson, jj.

Barclay E. V. McCarty, for appellant.

C. De Hart Brower, for respondent.

*897"VAN BRUNT, P. J.

It is manifest that, under section 887 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the witnesses to be examined by commission must be named therein. It is also well settled that open commissions, upon the part of the plaintiff, to examine witnesses out of the state, will not be granted, except under peculiar circumstances, and without the strongest and most convincing reasons, as the granting of such a motion upon behalf of the plaintiff simply transfers the trial of the cause to a jurisdiction different from that in which the plaintiff has seen fit to place the venue. Einstein v. Electric Co., 9 App. Div. 570, 41 N. Y. Supp. 808. Applying this rule to the case at bar, it is manifest that no such reasons have been shown. It is claimed upon the part of the plaintiff and appellant that the moving papers give the exact facts which are sought to be proved by each of the witnesses named in the commission. It is evident, therefore, that there would be no difficulty whatever in the framing of suitable interrogatories in order to bring out the testimony which the plaintiff knows that .each witness will give. Instead of the circumstances developed by the papers showing any necessity for an open commission, they clearly established the impropriety of allowing the testimony to be taken in any such unusual manner.

The order should be affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements. All concur.