alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cedar & Washington Associates, LLC, Appellant, v Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc., et al., Defendants, and TRC Environmental Corporation et al., Respondents.

[944 NYS2d 47]—

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered October 13, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, dismissed plaintiffs claim for private nuisance against defendants LVI Environmental Services, Inc. and TRC Environmental Corporation, and dismissed plaintiff’s claims for *449negligence, gross negligence, and strict liability against TRC, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In the amended complaint, plaintiff, lessee of land and owner and operator of two hotels near the Deutsche Bank Building (the building) at Ground Zero, seeks to recover damages arising out of a fire at the building, where defendant contractors were engaged in abatement and deconstruction work. Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ disregard for public health and safety caused at least nine fires leading up to the subject fire. Plaintiffs allegations are insufficient to state a cause of action against TRC, which merely provided environmental consulting and health and safety services pursuant to a contract with the building’s owner and owed no duty of care to plaintiff, a third party to the contract (see *Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs.,*98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]).

Plaintiffs tort claims, including its private nuisance claim, also fail since plaintiff merely alleges economic loss, not personal injury or property damages (see *532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods v Finlandia Ctr.,*96 NY2d 280, 291-292 [2001]; *Round about Theatre Co. v Tishman Realty & Constr. Co.,*302 AD2d 272, 272-273 [2003]). Although plaintiff alleges that it was damaged by glass, debris, smoke, dust and water that fell into and around its property, and that there was water damage to the property from the firefighting techniques, these allegations of property damage are too speculative or conclusory to have merit. Indeed, there is no indication of the extent of the damages, the cost of repair or how its buildings were affected.

The cause of action for private nuisance also fails because the alleged nuisance affects a wide area and adjacent properties *(see A & L Gift Shop v ASA Waterproofing Corp.,*2005 NY Slip Op 30482[U], *7 [Sup Ct, NY County 2005]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Saxe, J.P, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
**Exhibit 12.3**
I, Fabio de Oliveira Barbosa, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Vale Overseas Limited; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4.  The company’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have:
 a.  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b.  Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  c.  Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The company’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a.  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b.  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: June 2, 2005                           /s/ Fabio de Oliveira Barbosa   Name:  Fabio de Oliveira Barbosa   Title:  Director and Principal Executive Officer
# C_2019383EN.01006301.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/63

---

Action brought on 5 September 2019 — EM v Parliament

(Case T-599/19)

(2019/C 383/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: EM (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present application admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present application admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the contested decision dated 31 October 2018, which was confirmed by the decision dated 24 May 2019 rejecting the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision dated 31 October 2018, which was confirmed by the decision dated 24 May 2019 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

| — | order the payment of compensation in respect of the material harm allegedly suffered, amounting to EUR 165 000, and compensation in respect of the non-material harm allegedly suffered, estimated at the sum of EUR 50 000. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of compensation in respect of the material harm allegedly suffered, amounting to EUR 165 000, and compensation in respect of the non-material harm allegedly suffered, estimated at the sum of EUR 50 000.

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, infringement of Articles 12 and 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, a failure to observe the duty to provide assistance and misuse of powers. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, infringement of Articles 12 and 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, a failure to observe the duty to provide assistance and misuse of powers.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of good administration, breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff and a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of good administration, breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff and a manifest error of assessment.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 FEB-11-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         14,045
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  312,081
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,974,185
<PP&E>                                         31,595
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,005,780
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,840,039
<BONDS>                                        836,464
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,329,277
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,005,780
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               46,158
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               31,750
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                14,408
<INCOME-TAX>                                   7,518
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            6,890
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   6,890
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
#### HACHEMEISTER, Respondent, v. JETTER et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by Karoline Hachemeister against Elizabeth Jetter and another. M. C. Katz, for appellants. J. A. Hodge, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
Exhibit 32.1

CEO/CFO Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Pinnacle
Bankshares Corporation, respectively, certify that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2011, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation and subsidiary at the dates and for the periods indicated.

The foregoing certification is made pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|             |  |  |  |                                      
|------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|May 16, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Robert H. Gilliam, Jr.           
|Date         |  |  |  | Robert H. Gilliam, Jr., President and
|             |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer              
|             |  | 
|May 16, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Bryan M. Lemley                  
|Date         |  |  |  | Bryan M. Lemley, Secretary,          
|             |  |  |  | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1998, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIALS STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,573
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,573
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,573
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,512
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            29
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,968)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,573
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,087
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,087)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,087)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
1 ... SeeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

# COURT OF APPEALS SE CONDDIS T RICTOFT EXAS

FORT W ORTH NO. 2 - 09 - 33 6- CR CI P R I ANO R AM ON A L M ANZ A I I I AP P E L L ANT V . THE STATE OF TE XA S STATE

----- ----- FR O M THE 3 72 DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY ND

----- ----- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1 

### AND J UDGME NT

----- ----- W e h aveco ns i der ed “Appel l ant ’ s M ot i on To Di sm i ssA pp ea l . ” The m ot i on c om pl i e sw i t h r ul e 42. 2( a ) of t her ul e so fa pp e l l a t e p r oc e du r e . Te x. R. A pp. P. 42 . 2( a) . N o deci si on of t h i s courthavi ng been del i ver ed bef or e w e re c e i v e d th i sm o ti o n , w e g ra n t th e m o ti o n a n d d i s m i s st h e a p p e a l . S eeTe x. R. A p p . P . 4 2 .2 (a ), 4 3 .2 (f). P E RCU R I AM PA N EL: GA RD N ER, W A LKER, an d M C C O Y, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Oct ob e r15, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Form
10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,350
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             183
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      6,285
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           5,926
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             5,993
<LOANS>                                         38,594
<ALLOWANCE>                                         66
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  55,089
<DEPOSITS>                                      33,067
<SHORT-TERM>                                       179
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                436
<LONG-TERM>                                     14,261
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,147
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  55,089
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,960
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  853
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    56
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,869
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,556
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 812
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,368
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       18
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  12
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,441
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    334
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         334
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       214
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.57
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.31
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                        54
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      2
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                    66
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       21
<RECOVERIES>                                         4
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                   66
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             66
        

</TABLE>
#### Hennadiy ZAPOROZHETS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-71296.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 21, 2011.

H. Raymond Fasanom, The Law Offices of Madeo & Fasano, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Anthony Paul Nicastro, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Tracey McDonald, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Hennadiy Zaporozhets, a native and citizen of Ukraine, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’(“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Zaporozhets fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the agency’s denial of his application for relief. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

We lack jurisdiction to review Zaporo-zhets’s contention regarding receipt of a list of free legal services programs because he failed to raise it before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th *217Cir.2004) (noting that procedural due process claims must be exhausted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Frances De Lork, Appellant, v Home Insurance Company, Respondent.

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs, for reasons stated at Special Term, Pine, J. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Pine, J. — arbitration.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-106441, 333-98765, 333-62868,333-38072, 333-33946, 333-91451, 333-88719, 333-85031, 333-53153, 333-52349, 333-52347, 333-52345, 333-116661) and Form S-3 (No. 333-85628) of our reports dated February 28, 2005 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule ofVisual Networks, Inc*.* and management’s annual report on internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

Grant Thornton LLP 

 

Vienna, Virginia 

February 28, 2005 

 

47
PEOPLES-SIDNEY FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Peoples-Sidney  Financial Corporation
(the "Corporation") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed
with the  Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date of this  Certification
(the "Report"),  I, Debra A. Geuy, the Chief Financial  Officer and Treasurer of
the  Corporation,  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 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 Corporation.

              /s/ Debra A. Geuy
              -----------------
              Debra A. Geuy, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

              Date:  May 14, 2003

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to the  Corporation  and  will  be  retained  by the  Corporation  and
furnished to the Security and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                                                             30.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302



I, Jonathan M. Rothberg, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of CuraGen Corporation;



2. Based on my knowledge, this 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.



Date: June 16, 2004



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Jonathan M. Rothberg, Ph.D.                             
|Jonathan M. Rothberg, Ph.D.                                 
|Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the
Board