alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Diana Rodriguez, Appellant, v The Mount Sinai Hospital, Respondent.

[949 NYS2d 11]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered July 11, 2011, which, to the extent appealed as limited by the briefs, upon converting defendant hospital’s motion to *535dismiss the medical malpractice claims as barred by the statute of limitations into a motion for summary judgment, granted the motion to the extent of dismissing all claims arising from the bilateral prophylactic mastectomy performed on November 20, 2001, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant met its burden on the motion by submitting evidence showing that plaintiffs claims relating to her mastectomy are time-barred *(see*CPLR 214-a; *Cox v Kingsboro Med. Group,*88 NY2d 904, 906 [1996]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous treatment doctrine or the provisions of CPLR 208. With respect to the continuous treatment doctrine, the record shows that plaintiffs mastectomy on November 20, 2001 and her breast reconstruction surgery on September 26, 2002 were separate and discrete procedures, as further treatment after plaintiffs mastectomy was not “explicitly anticipated” by both plaintiff and her doctors *(Cox,*88 NY2d at 906-907; *cf. Blaier v Cramer,*303 AD2d 301, 302 [2003]). With respect to the tolling provisions of CPLR 208, the record shows that, despite plaintiffs depression and anxiety, she was able to protect her legal rights and function in society *(see McCarthy v Volkswagen of Am.,*55 NY2d 543, 548-549 [1982]; *see also Burgos v City of New York,*294 AD2d 177, 178 [2002]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 31865(U).]
#### Darlene Donald, Respondent, v Devan E. Ahern, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[945 NYS2d 925]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Donald A. Greenwood, J.), entered September 22, 2011 in a personal injury action. The order denied the motion of defendant to strike plaintiff s note of issue and certificate of readiness.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the note of issue and certificate of readiness are vacated.

Same memorandum as in *Donald v Ahern*(96 AD3d 1608 [2012]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Sconiers, JJ.
# C_2019372EN.01003502.xml

| 4.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/35

---

Action brought on 19 September 2019 — Daw v EUIPO (SOS Innenfarbe)

(Case T-625/19)

(2019/C 372/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daw SE (Ober-Ramstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Registration of the European Union word mark ‘SOS Innenfarbe’ — Application for registration No 17 870 690

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2019 in Case R 277/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul the Decision of EUIPO of 7 January 2019 in so far as it rejects the application for registration of the mark ‘SOS Innenfarbe’ in respect of the following goods in Class 2:






  — | ‘Paints, lacquers, lasures, paints, preservatives against rust; Primers; Dyes, colorants, paint paste, mordants; Thickeners for colours; Fixing solutions, siccatives for colours; Thinners and binders for paints, lacquers and coatings; Solvents for thinning paints; Preservatives for wood, wood mordants and wood preservatives; Coatings, including textured; bactericides and/or fungicides; Corrosion inhibiting admixtures; Protective preparations for metals’; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision of EUIPO of 7 January 2019 in so far as it rejects the application for registration of the mark ‘SOS Innenfarbe’ in respect of the following goods in Class 2:

—

‘Paints, lacquers, lasures, paints, preservatives against rust; Primers; Dyes, colorants, paint paste, mordants; Thickeners for colours; Fixing solutions, siccatives for colours; Thinners and binders for paints, lacquers and coatings; Solvents for thinning paints; Preservatives for wood, wood mordants and wood preservatives; Coatings, including textured; bactericides and/or fungicides; Corrosion inhibiting admixtures; Protective preparations for metals’;

| — | order EUIPO to allow the application for registration to be published, as lodged; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to allow the application for registration to be published, as lodged;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---
#### CANAVAN BROS. CO. v. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF AMERICA.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Appeal—Review—Disobetion op Court.

Where parties in an action had a right to trial by jury unless it clearly appeared that a jury trial was impracticable, in which case the court had power to refer the issue to a referee, and the court decided that a • jury trial was practicable and denied the motion for reference, its judgment will not be reversed.

*573Appeal from Special Term.

Action by the Canavan Bros. Company against the Automobile Club of America. From an order denying a motion to refer the issues to a referee, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before PATTERSON, P. J., and INGRAHAM, CLARKE, SCOTT, and LAMBERT, JJ.

Franklin Nevins, for appellant.

William W. Niles, for respondent.

INGRAHAM, J.

While the court had power to refer the issues in this action to referee for trial, the parties had a right to a trial by jury, unless it clearly appeared such a trial was impracticable. As the court at Special Term has decided that such a trial was practicable, and has therefore denied the motion for a reference, we do not think that upon these papers we should reverse that determination. The affirmance of this order, however, is without prejudice to the court at Trial Term, when the case should be brought on for trial, ordering the issues to be tried before a referee, if it should then appear that a trial by a jury was impracticable.

The order appealed from is therefore- affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements of the appeal to the party in whose favor final judgment is awarded. All concur.
#### In the Matter of 51-53 West 129th Street HDFC, Appellant, v Attorney General of the State of New York et al., *675Respondents. In the Matter of 31-33 West 129th Street HDFC, Appellant, v Attorney General of the State of New York et al., Respondents.

[944 NYS2d 551]—

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered November 29, 2011, which, inter alia, denied the petitions pursuant to Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 511 for court approval authorizing the sale of substantially all the assets of petitioners’ not-for-profit Housing Development Funds, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As a threshold issue, petitioners have failed to show that the proposed sales of their properties are even possible. Petitioner 31-33 West 129th Street HDFC included only portions of its contract for sale in the record which indicate that it must convey a fee simple interest in the property that can receive title insurance. Petitioner 51-53 West 129th Street HDFC, which went to contract on the same date with the same purchaser, failed to include any portion of its contract of sale in the record. However, given that the properties were foreclosed in tax proceedings more than four months ago and that petitioners’ interests are subject to imminent extinguishment by ministerial act of the Commissioner of Finance (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 11-412.1; *O’Bryan v Stark,*77 AD3d 494 [2010], *lv denied*17 NY3d 704 [2011]), it would appear that petitioners’ interests would likely be deemed uninsurable in any case.

Even if this proceeding is not moot, respondent NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development’s approval of these transactions, which effectively result in the dissolutions of petitioners, is required (N-PCL 1002 [c]). The transactions were properly reviewed under N-PCL 511, with notice to the Attorney General. Section 511 (d) provides that such transactions may be approved if their commercial terms are fair and reasonable, and if either the purpose of the corporation or the interests of the members are advanced by the transaction. Here, there is no dispute that the purchase prices of the properties are commercially reasonable. However, the purposes of the corporations are clearly served better by disapproval. The purpose of the petitioners is the provision of low income housing. Both the proposed sales will be to the same for-profit landlord. By contrast, with no sale, the properties will be transferred to qualified third-party, low-income landlords. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 33096(U).]
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
 Crop Diseases, Pests and Genetics Research: Parlier, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center
                                    Commodity Protection and Quality Research
                                    Water Management Research
                                    National Arid Land Plant Genetic RepositorySearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Parlier, California San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center Crop Diseases, Pests and Genetics Research People







Summaira  Riaz    Research Geneticist (Plants)  Grapevines
TBEPh.D. -
M.S.  -
B.S.  -

9611 South Riverbend AvenueParlier, California 93648
(559) 596-2923summaira.riaz@usda.govBefore joining the USDA-ARS, Dr. RiazTBE


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
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 303 

Honoring the life, service, and sacrifice of Captain Colin P. Kelly, Jr., United 

States Army. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 20, 2011 

Mr. NELSON of Florida submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the life, service, and sacrifice of Captain Colin 

P. Kelly, Jr., United States Army. 

Whereas Captain Colin P. Kelly, Jr., was born in Madison, 

Florida, in 1915 and graduated from that community’s 

high school in 1932; 

Whereas Captain Kelly attended the United States Military 

Academy at West Point, New York, graduating in 1937 

and was assigned to a B–17 bomber group; 

Whereas Captain Kelly was stationed in the Philippines as a 

B–17 pilot in the Army Air Corps when the United 

States came under Japanese attack on December 7, 

1941; 

Whereas, on December 10, 1941, when Clark Field in the 

Philippines was attacked by Japanese forces, Captain 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•SRES 303 IS 

Kelly and his 7 crew members, Lieutenant Joe M. Bean, 

Second Lieutenant Donald Robins, Staff Sergeant James 

E. Halkyard, Technical Sergeant William J. Delehanty, 

Sergeant Meyer S. Levin, Private First Class Willard L. 

Money, and Private First Class Robert E. Altman, were 

sent to locate and sink a Japanese Aircraft Carrier, one 

of the first bombing missions of World War II; 

Whereas the crew, commanded by Captain Kelly, located Japanese warships operating off the Luzon Coast, and during the mission successfully hit a large Japanese warship; 

Whereas on the return flight to Clark Field, the B–17 came 

under attack by 2 enemy aircraft and was critically damaged; 

Whereas Captain Kelly ordered his crew to bail out while he 

remained at the controls; 

Whereas Captain Kelly continued to operate the controls as 

the 6 surviving crew members bailed out and parachuted 

safely to the ground, despite remaining under fire during 

the descent; 

Whereas the B–17 crashed near Clark Field, killing Captain 

Kelly, who had remained at the controls so his crew had 

time to evacuate the aircraft; 

Whereas Captain Kelly was posthumously awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his heroic actions on December 10, 1941; and 

Whereas the Four Freedoms Monument in Madison, Florida 

was commissioned by President Franklin D. Roosevelt 

and dedicated in Captain Kelly’s memory in 1943: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•SRES 303 IS 

1 (1) recognizes Captain Colin P. Kelly, Jr., as 

2 an Army officer and pilot of the highest caliber, up3 holding the Army’s core values of loyalty, duty, re4 spect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal 

5 courage; 

6 (2) commends Captain Kelly for his service to 

7 the United States during the first days of World 

8 War II; and 

9 (3) honors the sacrifice made by Captain Kelly, 

10 giving his own life to save the lives of his crew. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2016106EN.01003501.xml

| 21.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/35

---

Order of the General Court of 26 January 2016 — Permapore v OHIM — José Joaquim Oliveira II — Jardins & Afins (Terraway)

(Case T-277/15) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Terraway - Earlier national and international word marks TERRAWAY - Partial rejection of the opposition - Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed - Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring that the appeal is deemed not to have been filed - Action manifestly lacking any basis in law))

(2016/C 106/40)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Permapore Ltd (Nenagh, Ireland) (represented by: J. Sales, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: José Joaquim Oliveira II — Jardins & Afins Lda (Grijó, Portugal) (represented by: M. Oehen Mendes, R. Duarte Morais, M. Ribeiro da Fonseca and S. Luís Dias, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2015 (Case R 2496/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between José Joaquim Oliveira II — Jardins & Afins Lda and Permapore Ltd.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Permapore Ltd is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Permapore Ltd is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM).

| 3. | José Joaquim Oliveira II — Jardins & Afins Lda is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

José Joaquim Oliveira II — Jardins & Afins Lda is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dewayne Richardson, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 302]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Sonberg, J.), rendered December 1, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly determined that there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, to support the submission of a charge on the justification defense *(see People v Reynoso,*73 NY2d 816 [1988]; *People v Watts,*57 NY2d 299 [1982]). Defendant was observed repeatedly stomping the victim’s head and chest with his heavy boots, *792while the victim was on the ground covered in blood. Under the circumstances, defendant’s boots constituted a dangerous instrument within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 [13]; *see People v Carter,*53 NY2d 113, 116-117 [1981]), and his conduct, which caused the victim to sustain significant injuries, constituted deadly physical force within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (11). Moreover, the evidence showed that defendant had an opportunity to safely retreat while the victim was lying on the ground *(see People v Taylor,*92 AD3d 556 [2012]; *People v Mayorquin,*30 AD3d 317 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 850 [2006]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P, Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.
# Official Journal C 329/2015

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 329 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 586 October 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 329

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 586 October 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 329/1 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7632 — Nokia/Alcatel-Lucent) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2015/C 329/2 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7761 — Permira/OTPP/GFKL Group/Lowell Group) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 329/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7632 — Nokia/Alcatel-Lucent) (
  1
  )

1

1

2015/C 329/2

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7761 — Permira/OTPP/GFKL Group/Lowell Group) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 329/3 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 329/3

Euro exchange rates

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 329/4 | Publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 3 |
| 2015/C 329/5 | Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 17 |
| 2015/C 329/6 | Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 20 |

V   Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2015/C 329/4

Publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

3

2015/C 329/5

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

17

2015/C 329/6

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

20

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
# C_2021422EN.01003802.xml

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/38

---

Order of the General Court of 26 August 2021 — Imagina Media Audiovisual v Commission

(Case T-269/19) (1)

(2021/C 422/51)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---
AO 450(Rev. 6/85)Judgment in a Civil Case

United States District Court

Northern District of Tllinois
Eastern Division

Ronnie Evans JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
v. Case Number OO C 7222
City of Chicago, et al

oO Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues
have been tried and the jury rendered its verdict.

a Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court.
The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that defendant Officers’ motion for
summary judgment is granted in its entirety, resolving counts I, IT, IV and V of
plaintiff's second amended complaint. The Court also grants summary judgment
to defendant City of Chicago with respect to count ITI as well.

Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk of Court

Date: September 26, 2003 Heap go Aires

George nh: Schwemin, Deputy Clerk