alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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
 Nat'l Clonal Germplasm Rep - Tree Fruit & Nut Crops & Grapes: Davis, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Orders & ServicesSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Prunus - Peach Inventoryheadline bar Main


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
#### Philip Seldon, Appellant, v Andrew Spinnell, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 666]-

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered on or about September 28, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff is correct that the court should not have dismissed the first through eighth, tenth, and eleventh causes of action based on res judicata and collateral estoppel. However, we affirm on other grounds raised by defendant below *(see Matter of American Dental Coop. v Attorney-General of State of N.Y.,*127 AD2d 274, 279 n 3 [1987]).

All of the plaintiff’s Judiciary Law § 487 claims (the first through tenth causes of action) should have been dismissed because defendant was a party in the cases on which those causes of action are based *(see Haber v Kisner,*255 AD2d 223 [1998]; *Northern Trust Bank of Florida/Sarasota N.A. v Coleman,*632 F Supp 648, 650 [SD NY 1986]). Plaintiffs remedy lay exclusively in the previous lawsuits *(see Yalkowsky v Century Apts. Assoc.,*215 AD2d 214, 215 [1995]). *Amalfitano v Rosenberg*(12 NY3d 8 [2009]), on which plaintiff relies, does not overrule any of the above cases. Indeed, the defendant in *Amalfitano,*was acting in his capacity as an attorney representing a client when he commenced the lawsuit at issue *(id.*at 11). Thus, there is nothing in *Amalfitano*to suggest that it expanded Judiciary Law § 487 to apply to attorneys who are merely parties to an action rather than only to attorneys acting in their capacity as attorneys *(see Barrows v Alexander,*78 AD3d 1693 [2010]).

Even though the eleventh cause of action does not explicitly reference Judiciary Law § 487, most of that cause of action is based on defendant’s allegedly false statements in other lawsuits in which defendant was a party. The only paragraph of the eleventh cause of action that is not based on such statements fails to state a cause of action, as it does not indicate how plaintiff was damaged by defendant’s alleged intimidation of a third party.

Defendant did not cross appeal from the motion court’s *sub silentio*denial of the branch of his motion which sought sanctions against plaintiff. Accordingly, we cannot award the relief he seeks *(see Hecht v City of New York,*60 NY2d 57 [1983]).

*780Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Catterson, DeGrasse and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Scarpelli, Appellant.

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), rendered October 14, 1983, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*687Judgment affirmed.

Edward Duelfer, one of the complaining witnesses, testified at the trial that the value of the items taken from his home in the incident forming the basis of the charges at bar was $800. In an effort to impeach Duelfer, defense counsel questioned him with regard to a sworn statement Duelfer had made that his loss was $25,000. The sworn statement was in fact taken from the verified counterclaim interposed by Duelfer in an action for false arrest brought against him by the defendant and his codefendant.

On redirect, Duelfer was asked the result of that action. Over defense counsel’s objection, Duelfer answered, “The Court—how can I phrase it—found that I was not guilty of false arrest”. In response to further questioning, Duelfer testified, “I had the right to bring them to court and sue them if I wanted to”.

After a recess in the trial, and a colloquy between the Trial Judge, the prosecutor, and defense counsel, the Trial Judge struck from the record any reference to the civil action and to Duelfer’s knowledge of the civil action. The court instructed the jury that it was not to consider any aspect of any such civil action, stating, *inter alia,*“It is really quite immaterial to our purposes in reference to this particular case as to what if any decision was made in some other action”.

While it was error to admit Duelfer’s responses concerning the civil action, in that such testimony tended to negate the presumption of defendant’s innocence *(cf. Taylor v Kentucky,*436 US 478; *People v Roldos,*112 AD2d 388), any error was obviated by the thorough curative instructions given by the court *(see, People v Safian,*46 NY2d 181, 190, *cert denied sub nom. Miner v New York,*443 US 912).

In any event, we note that the proof of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. Both complaining witnesses, Edward Duelfer and his wife, Mary Duelfer, testified that they saw the defendant and his codefendant (defendant’s brother), their close neighbors for 11 years, running from their apartment. Moments later, when entering the apartment, the Duelfers learned that it had been burglarized.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-80539, 333-1854 and 333-68323 on
Form S-8, and No. 333-75386 on Form S-3 of META Group, Inc. of our report dated March 17, 2004, July 15, 2004 as to
Note 12 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the Company's adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142,
"Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets" and the restatement of certain segment information described in Note 12) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of META
Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Stamford,
Connecticut
July 15, 2004

---



QuickLinks
# C_2019288EN.01006201.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/62

---

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Mezzaroma v Parliament

(Case T-408/19)

(2019/C 288/75)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Roberto Mezzaroma (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola and L. Florio, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
#### Jordan Ferrick, Respondent, v City of New York, Respondent, and New York City Transit Authority et al., Appellants.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Greenfield, J.), entered May 6, 1983, which denied the motion for *114summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to the New York City Transit Authority and the two defendants-appellants, transit police officers, modified, on the law without costs, to dismiss the first cause of action for assault, false arrest and false imprisonment and otherwise affirmed as to the second cause of action for malicious prosecution.

The underlying action, seeking to recover damages, arises out of an incident in June 1979, when the plaintiff was allegedly arrested and assaulted by two transit police officers in a subway station at 42nd Street and Lexington Avenue. In January 1980, the plaintiff was acquitted after a jury trial of charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

In June 1980, the action was commenced. In January 1983, the Transit Authority and the individual defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that a timely notice of claim was not served, the notice of claim having been served over 90 days after the incident, in 1979.

The court, at Special Term, denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that it was an omnibus motion and did not distinguish among the various claims or causes of action and that the notice of claim for malicious prosecution was timely, inasmuch as that claim did not accrue until dismissal of the charges against the plaintiff.

Of course, there was no prejudice to the Transit Authority with respect to the notice of claim, and so we deal merely with the technical question.

The plaintiff has substantially conceded that the notice of claim was untimely as to the assault, false arrest and false imprisonment claims. While the claim for malicious prosecution could not accrue until after the acquittal in January 1980, it was implicit in this situation and, therefore, should be deemed timely. *(See, McElveen v Police Dept.,*70 AD2d 858; *cf. Diemer v Diemer,*8 NY2d 206.) To the extent that *Colena v City of New York*(68 AD2d 898, 900) is to the contrary, we believe it would exalt form over substance and, therefore, do not follow it.

The plaintiff asked that insofar as we may dismiss, it be directed only as to the Transit Authority and not as to the individual officers. However, service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to the commencement of a tort action against them as well as the Transit Authority. (Public Authorities Law § 1212 [4]; General Municipal Law § 50-e [3].) Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Lynch, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ.
##### 



Bonus Schedule Board Members 2005
  Bonus Schedule 2005
 
  Bonus Schedule
  > 98%
    
    Bonus equal to
    
    12 monthly salaries> 96%
    
    
    
    11> 94%
    
    
    
    10> 92%
    
    
    
    9> 90%
    
    
    
    8> 88%
    
    
    
    7> 86%
    
    
    
    6> 84%
    
    
    
    5> 82%
    
    
    
    4> 80%
    
    
    
    3> 78%
    
    
    
    2> 76%
    
    Bonus equal to
    
    1 monthly salary
 
 Performance in Excess of Target:
 
 The target for 2005 is as follows:
   
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Chris Harris, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (McShane, J.), rendered July 14, 1980, convicting him of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon ip the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The court did not err in failing to charge the jury that two witnesses for the People were accomplices, since there was no evidence which would have supported such a view of the facts and no request for such an instruction was made. In any event, we have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
#### Nancy Ann O. et al., Appellants, v Poughkeepsie City School District, Respondent.

[944 NYS2d 251]—

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Wood, J.), dated December 1, 2010, and (2) an order of the same court dated December 29, 2010, which, upon the decision, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision *(see Schicchi v J.A. Green Constr. Corp.,*100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,

*973Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The infant plaintiff, a developmentally challenged 13-year-old in the eighth grade, alleged that she was sexually assaulted by a fellow developmentally challenged student while the two students were walking from their regular classroom on the first floor of Poughkeepsie Middle School to a speech therapy class held on the second floor. The infant plaintiff, by her mother, and her mother, derivatively, commenced this action against Poughkeepsie City School District to recover damages for personal injuries, alleging, inter alia, negligent supervision. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiffs appeal, and we reverse.

A school has a duty to exercise the same degree of care toward its students as would a reasonably prudent parent *(see Mirand v City of New*York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994]; *Rodriguez v Riverhead Cent. School Dist.,*85 AD3d 1147 [2011]). While schools are not insurers of the safety of their students, they do, however, have the duty to adequately supervise them and may be held liable when a student sustains foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision *(see Mirand v City of New York,*84 NY2d at 49; *Doxtader v Middle Country Cent. School Dist. at Centereach,*81 AD3d 685, 686 [2011]). Here, the defendant failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that it properly supervised the infant plaintiff or that its alleged negligent supervision was not a proximate cause of her injuries *(see Rodriguez v Riverhead Cent. School Dist.,*85 AD3d at 1147; *Hernandez v Middle Country Cent. School Dist.,*83 AD3d 781, 781 [2011]). Indeed, the evidence submitted by the defendant in support of its motion, including the transcript of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff mother, reveals the existence of triable issues of fact. Since the defendant failed to meet its burden, the burden did not shift to the plaintiffs, and the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers need not have been considered *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court improperly granted the defendant’s motion *(see Bloomfield v Jericho Union Free School Dist.,*80 AD3d 637 [2011]; *cf. Doxtader v Middle Country Cent. School Dist. at Centereach,*81 AD3d at 686). Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo, Florio and Cohen, JJ., concur.
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
 National Clonal Germplasm Repository: Corvallis, OR
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Plant Collections
                        Home
                                    Plant Collecting Expeditions
                                    Germplasm CGC Reports
                                    GRIN-Global
                                    Outreach
                                    Documents
                    USDASearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Corvallis, Oregon National Clonal Germplasm Repository Docs





- NCGR-Corvallis HOME
- NCGR-Corvallis Tree Fruit & Nut Collections
- NCGR-Corvallis Berries, Hops, Mint Collections
- Corvallis Germplasm Distribution Seasons
- NCGR-Corvallis Distribution Policies

Arctic and Subarctic Plant Gene Bank - Palmer, Alaskaheadline bar The Palmer, Alaska location of the USDA Agricultural Research Service has been closed.

Plant germplasm formerly housed at the site has been transferred to ARS genebanks in Pullman, Washington (*Rheum*, rhubarb) and Corvallis, Oregon (*Ribes*, currants and gooseberries; *Mentha*, mint ).Download Peony SSRs Workbookby Barbara Gilmore, 2012
2009 Annual Report
2010 Annual Report
Peony Viruses - 2011
Blueberry Trials on the Kenai Peninsula


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
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Credit Union Administration

# TIME AND DATE:

10:00 a.m., Thursday, July 22, 2021.

# PLACE:

                        Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the meeting will be open to the public via live webcast only. Visit the agency's homepage (                        *www.ncua.gov*) and access the provided webcast link.                    

# STATUS:

This meeting will be open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 

1. Request for Information and Comment, Digital Assets and Related Technologies.

2. NCUA Rules and Regulations, Complex Credit Union Leverage Ratio.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2021-15908 Filed 7-22-21; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

 

The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the foregoing Report on Form 10-K pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any other securities law.

 

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78) and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Broadway Financial Corporation as of and for the year ended December 31, 2019.

 

 
| Date:   July 17, 2020 | By:    | /s/   Brenda J. Battey           |
|----------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|
|                       |   | Brenda   J. Battey               |
|                       |   | Chief   Financial Officer        |
|                       |   | Broadway   Financial Corporation |

 

----