alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MYERS v. ROSENBACK.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County,

General Term.

December 2, 1895.)

1. Appeal—Denial op Several Motions—General Exception.

A single exception to the denial of several motions does not present for review the denial of any one of the motions, unless the party was entitled to the granting of them all.

2. Same—Insufficient Ground.

An appeal from the court of common pleas to the court of appeals will not be granted merely because the decision may subject the party to costs in numerous suits he has brought.

Action by Frederick S. Myers against Moses S. Bosenback. A judgment of the general term of the city court (31 N. Y. Supp. 993), affirming a judgment in favor of defendant, was affirmed (3á lsT. Y. Supp. 63), and plaintiff moves for leave to appeal to the court of appeals. Denied.

Argued before DALY, C. J., and BISCHOFF and PRYOR, JJ.

*8Hamilton R. Squier, for plaintiff.

Horwitz & Hershfield (Otto Horwitz, of counsel), for defendant.

PER CURIAM.

All the questions which the appellant desires to present to the court of appeals were fully discussed and disposed of upon authority in the opinion at general term, and there seems to be no good reason, within the uniform adjudication in this court, for sending this case to the court of appeals. The point made on this motion that the error in the reception of evidence on the counterclaim may have influenced the jury on the merits of the action cannot be considered, as it was not presented on the appeal by any exception taken at the trial. The plaintiff’s motions at the close of the case for a verdict in his favor on the whole case, and on the counterclaim, and on the question of damages, were united, to the denial of all which but one exception was taken; and as plaintiff was not entitled to the granting of all of such motions, the single exception taken does not present the particular error complained of. Bosley v. Machine Co., 123 N. Y. 550-557, 25 N. E. 990. That the decision of the general term may result in the defendant being compelled to pay costs in the numerous actions he has brought for the installments of rent he claimed, and which such decision may prevent his recovering, is not ground for granting leave to appeal.

Motion denied, with $10 costs.
EXHIBIT
31.1











CERTIFICATION





I, the Chief
Executive Officer of PHL Variable Insurance Company (the “registrant”), certify
that:





1.    I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the registrant;





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;





3.    Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;





4.    The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:





(a)  designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;





(b)  evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and





(c)  disclosed
in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5.    The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





(a)  all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and





(b)  any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.








Date:  August
      14, 2008
            /s/ Philip K.
      PolkinghornName:
            Philip K.
      PolkinghornTitle:
            President
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-82,993-01

EX PARTE JAMES ALAN WHIDDON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 04-08-13776-A-BCCR IN THE 220TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM BOSQUE COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

assault on a police officer and sentenced to thirty-five years’ imprisonment. The Tenth Court of

Appeals affirmed his conviction. Whiddon v. State, No. 10-06-00085-CR (Tex. App.—Waco Feb.

7, 2007) (not designated for publication). 

Applicant contends, inter alia, that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance

because counsel failed to advise him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.

Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. Based on that affidavit, the trial court has

entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to advise Applicant of
-2-

his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, stating “Applicant’s appellate counsel

failed to effectively preserve Applicant’s right to file a PDR.” See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25

(Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The trial court also rejected the State’s affirmative defense of laches. See

Ex parte Perez, 445 S.W.3d 719 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The findings are supported by the habeas

record and are adopted by this Court.

Applicant is entitled to the opportunityto file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review

of the judgment of the Tenth Court of Appeals in Cause No. 10-06-00085-CR that affirmed his

conviction in Cause No. 10-06-00085-CR from the 220th District Court of Bosque County. 

Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with this Court within 30 days of the date

on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: June 03, 2015

Do not publish
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 1 of 36 PageID #:50
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 2 of 36 PageID #:51
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 3 of 36 PageID #:52
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 4 of 36 PageID #:53
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 5 of 36 PageID #:54
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 6 of 36 PageID #:55
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 7 of 36 PageID #:56
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 8 of 36 PageID #:57
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 9 of 36 PageID #:58
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 10 of 36 PageID #:59
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 11 of 36 PageID #:60
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 12 of 36 PageID #:61
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 13 of 36 PageID #:62
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 14 of 36 PageID #:63
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 15 of 36 PageID #:64
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 16 of 36 PageID #:65
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 17 of 36 PageID #:66
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 18 of 36 PageID #:67
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 19 of 36 PageID #:68
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 20 of 36 PageID #:69
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 21 of 36 PageID #:70
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 22 of 36 PageID #:71
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 23 of 36 PageID #:72
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 24 of 36 PageID #:73
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 25 of 36 PageID #:74
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 26 of 36 PageID #:75
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 27 of 36 PageID #:76
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 28 of 36 PageID #:77
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 29 of 36 PageID #:78
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 30 of 36 PageID #:79
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 31 of 36 PageID #:80
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 32 of 36 PageID #:81
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 33 of 36 PageID #:82
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 34 of 36 PageID #:83
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 35 of 36 PageID #:84
Case: 1:02-cv-01609 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 36 of 36 PageID #:85
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF BILL MCDERMOTT, CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF SAP AG

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of SAP AG (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |        |  |                           
|------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | --------------------------
|Date March 22, 2012 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Bill McDermott        
|                    |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Bill McDermott            
|                    |  |  |  | Title: |  | Co-Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
(55 Misc. Rep. 570.)

#### LYONS v. NEW YORK HERALD CO.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.

August, 1907.)

Libel—Complaint—Demurrer.

The complaint in a libel suit set up a publication charging a street car conductor to have been in complicity with pickpockets on a certain occasion, and the complaint averred that the matter was published concerning plaintiff, who was a conductor oí the particular car which was the scene oí the theit. *Held,*that a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that there was no sufficient identification oí the plaintiff as conductor would be overruled.

Action by John Lyons against the New York Herald Company. Demurrer to complaint overruled.

Maurice Simmons, for plaintiff.

Robert W. Candler, for defendant.

BISCHOFF, J.

The matter published concerning the plaintiff charges that he, the conductor of a street car, was in complicity with pickpockets upon the car. The defendant makes no contention that the words published were not libelous per se; and, indeed, there can be no reasonable ground for argument against the sufficiency of the complaint, so far. It is urged, however, that there is no actual identification of the plaintiff as the “conductor” in the article published, and that, upon the question of identity, the words employed fail to afford an indication that the plaintiff was intended which may be borne out by proof to connect him with the articles.

The averment that the matter was published concerning the plaintiff suffices, if his identity is indicated by circumstances in thé article which are susceptible of direct proof at the trial. Corr v. Sun Pub. Co., 177 N. Y. 131, 69 N: E. 288; Code Civ. Proc.§ 535. Here the articles, as alleged, described a certain car-theft inquiry; and the libel was directed to the conductor of the car. Certainly the circumstances indicate the availability of evidence to show that this plaintiff was the conductor of the particular car which was the scene of the theft, and this is enough. Nunnally v. New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, 111 App. Div. 482, 97 N. Y. Supp. 911, 186 N. Y. 532, 78 N. E. 1107; Townes v. New York Evening Journal P. Co., 109 App. Div. 852, 96 N. Y. Supp. 822.

The demurrer must be overruled, with costs, with leave to defendant to plead over upon payment of costs within 20 days.

Demurrer overruled, with costs, with leave to defendant to plead over upon payment of costs within 20 days.
POWER OF ATTORNEY
                          (Annual Report on Form 10-K)


          KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned, a director of
REGENT ASSISTED LIVING, INC. (the "Company"), does hereby constitute and appoint
Walter C. Bowen, David R. Gibson and Steven L. Gish, and each of them, his true
and lawful attorney and agent to execute in his name the Company's Annual Report
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1996 and any amendment thereto
and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and the
undersigned does hereby ratify and confirm all that said attorney and agent
shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

DATED: March 24, 1997


                                            DANA J. O'BRIEN
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            Signature

                                            Dana J. O'Brien
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            Type or Print Name
#### Tradex Global Master Fund SPC LTD et al., Respondents, v Titan Capital Group III, LP, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[944 NYS2d 527]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered August 11, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion of defendants Titan Capital Group III, LI] Titan Capital Group Global Return LLC (incorrectly sued as Titan Group Capital Global Return LLC), Titan Capital Group LLC, and Russell Abrams to dismiss plaintiffs’ fraud claim pursuant to CFLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted.

Contrary to defendants’ contention, not all of the misrepresentations alleged in the complaint are puffery, opinion, and expectation, and fraud is alleged with the particularity required by CFLR 3016 (b). Nevertheless, the fraud claim should have been dismissed.

First, insofar as plaintiffs claim they were fraudulently induced into making additional investments, Tradex Global Master Fund SEC LTD signed Additional Subscription Forms for Shares, each of which stated, “The undersigned restates all of the declarations, acknowledgments, warranties, agreements, and understandings made in the undersigned’s original Application Form for Shares as if they were made on the date hereof.” In turn, the original Application Form for Shares states that “this Application is based solely on the [Frivate Flacement] Memorandum.” Thus, any reliance by plaintiffs on Abrams’ alleged oral statements was “unjustifiable as a matter of law” *587
      *(see Matter of Dean Witter Managed Futures Ltd. Partnership Litig.,*282 AD2d 271 [2001]).

Second, insofar as plaintiffs claim that Abrams’ misrepresentations caused them to hold onto their shares instead of redeeming them as of June 30, 2010, this holder claim, which is part of plaintiffs’ fraud claim, is governed by Connecticut law since plaintiffs’ principal place of business is in that state *(see BT Triple Crown Merger Co., Inc. v Citigroup Global Mkts. Inc.,*19 Misc 3d 1129[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50941[U], *6 [2008]; *see also Ackerman v Price Waterhouse,*252 AD2d 179, 192-193 [1998]). Connecticut law does not recognize holder claims *(see e.g. Calibre Fund, LLC v BDO Seidman, LLP,*2010 WL 4517099, *5, 2010 Conn Super LEXIS 2619, *13-15 [2010]). Moreover, even under New York law, such a “holder claim” would be precluded under the out-of-pocket rule by which the true measure of damages for fraud is indemnity for the actual pecuniary loss sustained as a direct result of the wrong *(Starr Found. v American Intl. Group, Inc.*76 AD3d 25 [1st Dept 2010]). Under the rule there can be no recovery of profits which would have been realized in the absence of fraud *(id.).*Concur — Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.
EXHIBIT 10.8

Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary Sheet



|                |  |   |        | 
|--------------- |  | - | ------ | 
|Annual Retainer |  | $ | 39,655 | 



|                                               |  |                         |       | 
|---------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | ----- | 
|Type of Meeting                                |  | Amount Paid per Meeting |      
|Board Meeting                                  |  | $                       | 3,965 | 
|Special Meeting                                |  | $                       | 3,965 | 
|Telephonic Board Meeting                       |  | $                       | 1,130 | 
|Compensation & Nominating Committee Meeting    |  | $                       | 1,700 | 
|Audit Committee Meeting                        |  | $                       | 3,400 | 
|Executive Committee Meeting                    |  | $                       | 3,965 | 
|Additional Fee for Chairperson (except Audit)  |  | $                       | 1,700 | 
|Additional Fee for Audit Committee Chairperson |  | $                       | 2,265 |
/ktMr ^ l ^A^UBTOFGRIWAlAPFiALS

APR 06 2915

. , r, <, o ^ i AMAcoste,Clerk 76 7?!? vJJtc/c^s <9-i- 3/HcJ vJbu&X. 7 y/ /&J Qsrfl^ fe),/l,«m 4rd<e*d H\^- To -Z*&^ 'This &£p&-+«l>l<L

/Us >vk.. #?«J£,e <?£ /^U-ftc^Ai ~7b fernsynih ~rh ^P>? <2a**.t d><f <&/*)-

"7ir± CW&e_ fez. UcZA?,*?, s4>n>i "TZxas gsaePv rt<^i /Itde £</<fJ.€*£i-

<52sk^/'s-feW 6&mJ &fAi»m *Jtj£'sJfh4j^ /iCh#~ '72xa± 5b/z JcfteUk**

(W/rf fridge- hfiiS <$u£<4<^«'c4»cf*v r^k (/JaiU/Z- <^>u^\A^ 15 3*bY/2T
JvulUdic^n^ of All fl<Miffr\?t ggAdtzJ?-***, ,fimd •£*#l<\<lri*s/ <**C*p+ 7* <?#&<?

hy <p?£ Gm&liht'tyi e/L allte/L /arts cm daw* ^-ftf*- &*«ai, T&'/hidal,dg.

A3STMT'S fa«4~iCM JtJfr <!)',$ h^f Ciaufc/ duJ^. MaII hM£ <fh\ pdaj*XL

Can*.}- &$ U)*I/*/l dsu^n-fy u)&Tt <&f /Jak/?^ (U/ZfMSc //&*?- 1MT

oti'dq-rmib^fh &&*<$, 0?'aq~/2^£GTx #6, &C *M rfis. P&sc^-Lil.

<Ve> *V*£- 7^^/ 0U;//.4-r* Aicft&aJ 4/Un 3Zi UtoUlr^ *'<P

^gflWrn /frtA 12*** dad* 0<jP.(3Aiming {fv&Gsd**.* d&L'3-Q*) S&0 <&£>

findzza) /Gib* hfl$ sS^ fed'tOe & ANS^^< dkrm V%F &£e*Hf6>*z~

Ofi-7%?. (hxuarh /5«4 lOj/,Qrn /4*J***J A)/~*> tJwz peaj£u»e rt*ttd£.

7^/*/ -I7t* d&ua./0<F <L/fi»r)»h/>l /Q-ppea.)s I4#s. #6&'&JZ$ hl&

t&'Vii-'Ttfinfc &P"ft* /s^D/sW/ <2e>«*J \ 0*?/* ••-

0)3?, frt+bn 6a>t*>n~/tf <*r) <fhz <^$4??!
id*1 ^fh^Jm-ftpfill A^cJ T^td6m\o^.r

CP^i/ rf/^e^k (kwY)4ff em f?)£ *£&'st flldrndlfcj ^Jib&iAfiy' Aid- Szplzmb<£/C-

(%>^n lOfi//efL d&i&nfy cm "7%2 Jfe/sf' /flanJtfl t&i O&nuAM and \j«ni.
\J)ff,4& ««-f ^3«£~n5. *>

<M^6/2^a/^ JW ^/<r"T>s-^^i (kw*f Clad ^*^u^ A8jAl«ta-kf«2.

h**\,

<7hff>rs Th #z£pcr7\ss- ~7b i/fitt*. /±/-/z,e. -fx£<f*-f?J £Zt>A«AflH ^-^a/S^J-.

Ott^Sfsem s- 3? I/&G /)i*f£. /e^ny >£<£i1)£fi cpc** z /,&-»s _£- wr/1 />£ h*npcj Td

Addfi l<k> J^pzz-,

du/lt&SicJie^ 7>*±\- 'ZPnJ.ACA'b's, fh*\ Thl. XfOt? 7$ &f&ei,( &3u/> f

OP-fliti-ii &t*tfs kfl&r) 74s cf/9cs -fh+4 -ihz <l»hicf 7*yAy 'Tht $*$£ /)a-$

UXll*tw\ thd&suJ A//*^ dW^s Th*-\ TrhH da^a-h Take's Q.,<ihstL../<&£ a4

~ftfS Vi'&Ia/i&~ Q-P Tkxnt £en*-8 4i4*f-f0* And'f*tdS' LO,lb*r* Andes*) All

lEbfis tf*)e~A 'l0£,t pnislivd <°rh.0 lwdTM\.fb &l*. gW &&r\ ^6'/ SU \\

j8&(p£&4£2/Af

Ofiil I SO)^
#### In the Matter of William Wheeler, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[946 NYS2d 903]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Platkin, J.), entered June 22, 2011 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioner, an inmate, was found guilty after three separate tier II prison disciplinary hearings of violating numerous rules, after which it was determined that he was ineligible to receive a merit time allowance because the aggregate keeplock penalties that he received as a result of the three hearings exceeded 60 days *(see 7*NYCRR 280.2 [b] [3]). Petitioner filed an administrative appeal and commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging respondent’s ruling upholding that determination. While this proceeding was pending in Supreme Court, however, petitioner was found guilty after a tier III disciplinary hearing *1247of violating the disciplinary rule prohibiting drug use and received a penalty that included 60 days of keeplock and a recommended loss of three months good time credit (see 7 NYCRR 280.2 [b] [2] [xiii]; [3]). Petitioner did not administratively appeal the tier III determination and respondent thereafter moved to dismiss the subject proceeding as moot. Supreme Court granted this motion, prompting this appeal.

Inasmuch as the intervening unchallenged drug use violation and accompanying penalty, standing alone, render petitioner ineligible for a merit time allowance pursuant to the relevant statute and regulations (see *Matter of Ramos v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,*62 AD3d 1174, 1174-1175 [2009]; *see also*Correction Law § 803 [1] [d] [iv]; 7 NYCRR 280.2 [b] [2] [xiii]; [3]), we agree with Supreme Court that this proceeding challenging the prior denial of merit time allowances is now moot (see *generally Matter of Justice v Fischer,*74 AD3d 1648, 1648-1649 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 710 [2010]; *Matter of Swinton v Travis,*16 AD3d 851, 853 [2005]).

We have examined petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be unpersuasive.

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.