alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Aracelis Polanco, Appellant, v Greenstein & Milbauer, LLP, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 553]

*439Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, J.), entered on or about May 27, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant law firm’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

In her amended complaint, plaintiff alleged, among other things, that she was injured when she was struck in the neck by a piece of lumber; that defendant was negligent in urging her to settle the underlying personal injury action and in advising her that an MRI was not necessary and that its results would not lead to a more favorable outcome of her case; that, after settling the case for $20,000, she obtained an MRI showing a disc herniation that required surgical intervention; that she remains permanently disabled; that defendant’s negligence proximately caused her to sustain damages by not gaining the fair value for her case; and that she would have been successful in the underlying action had defendants exercised due care. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim for legal malpractice *(see Garnett v Fox, Horan & Camerini, LLP,*82 AD3d 435, 435 [2011]; *see generally Tortura v Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., 21*AD3d 1082, 1083 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 701 [2005]). Plaintiff was not required to show a likelihood of success in the underlying action, but was “required only to plead facts from which it could reasonably be inferred that defendant’s negligence caused [her] loss” *(Garnett,*82 AD3d at 436). Plaintiff pleaded such facts. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Roman, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jonathan A. Howard, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 917]

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Barry M. Donalty, J.), rendered February 20, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting *1697him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal *(see generally People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence *(see id.*at 255; *see generally People v Lococo,*92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.
# C_2021242EN.01003001.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Point Tec Products Electronic v EUIPO — Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon (representation of two extended wings around a triangle)

(Case T-615/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing two extended wings around a triangle - Earlier EU figurative mark representing two extended wings around a rectangle - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 72(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 242/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Point Tec Products Electronic GmbH (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by: D. Wiedemann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon S.A. (Saint-Imier, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2019 (Case R 2427/2018 5), relating to opposition proceedings between Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon and Point Tec Products Electronic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Point Tec Products Electronic GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Point Tec Products Electronic GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.

---
#### O’HEHIR v. MIDDLETOWN-GOSHEN TRACTION CO.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

December 2, 1895.)

Receipt—Effect—Proof of Pinal Settlement.

In an action for the price of work and labor done, a receipt in full for , the amount of a bill rendered, not purporting to be in full of all demands, is not conclusive as evidence of a final settlement.

Appeal from Orange county court.

Action by Patrick P. O’Hehir against the Middletown-Goshen Traction Company to recover for work done by plaintiff for defendant. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

The bill rendered and the receipt referred to in the opinion are as follows:

“Nov. 13th, 1894.

“Rockwell Construction Company, to W. P. Merritt, Dr.

“To excavating and blasting rock cut at Owen’s, $448.25, as per contract at $1.25 yd., 358% yds., as per Engineer Smith’s measurements.”

“Nov. 13th, 1894.

“Received from Rockwell Construction Company, rock cut Owens, four hundred forty-eight 2B/ioo dollars, in full of the above account.

“$448.25. W. P. Merritt.”

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.

O’Neill & Royce (Henry W. Wiggins, of counsel), for appellant.

F. V. Sanford, for respondent.

DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment entered in the county court of Orange county upon the verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff and from an order denying a motion for a new trial upon the minutes of the court. The action was for the recovery of $522.20 for a balance claimed to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff for services in blasting rock in a cut along the line of the defendant’s road. There was a dispute respecting the amount of work done, and the defense of payment was also set up by the defendant. There was testimony introduced on both sides which tended to show the theories of each party, and the question of fact involved was submitted to the jury by the county judge. The defendant complains of the charge respecting the legal effect of the receipt, but the complaint is without cause. The receipt was for the money called for by the bill upon which it was rendered, and is not a receipt in full. The testimony respecting the circumstances under which it was given is contradictory, and was submitted to the jury. The judge refused to charge that the receipt was evidence of a final settlement, and that was right, in view of the evidence. It must now be assumed that the jury found in favor of the plaintiff upon the question in dispute, and, there being evidence to sufficiently support such a finding, we cannot disturb the verdict upon that ground.

We find no errors of law in the case, and the judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial should be affirmed. All concur.
Case: 1:01-cv-08538 Document #: 10 Filed: 09/23/02 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:54

Case: 1:01-cv-08538 Document #: 10 Filed: 09/23/02 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:55
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eddie Collins, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), rendered on August 9, 1983, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur&emdash;Carro, J. P., Asch, Fein, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 3, 2009 

0527 

Order 

 

June 3, 2009 

138096 

PAL PROPERTIES, L.L.C., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 138096 

 COA: 280389 

Oakland CC: 2006-073149-CK 

TICOR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

CONSOLIDATED TITLE SERVICES, L.L.C., 

PIETRO LORIA, THOMAS MASTACUSA, and 

MARK CHAVES, 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 9, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit 15.1**

The Board of Directors and Shareholders 

Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. 

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-46155) pertaining to the Long-Term Incentive Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-88466)pertaining to the 2002 Long-Term Incentive Plan, and the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-144673) of Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc., of our report dated July 24, 2009, relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated interimfinancial statements of Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. that are included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

July 24, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. STATEMENTS OF PATHOGENESIS CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       8,139,153
<SECURITIES>                                46,868,390
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,961,242
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                  9,907,916
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            79,784,341
<PP&E>                                      27,341,526
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,704,385
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             112,765,747
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,630,726
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,329
<OTHER-SE>                                  93,394,062
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               112,765,747
<SALES>                                     60,684,091
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            61,051,764
<CGS>                                        9,555,213
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               62,621,663
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               110,470
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0<F2>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             492,551
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,882,901
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,882,901
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,882,901
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
<FN>
<F1>THE AMOUNT OF RECEIVABLES REPORTED IS NET OF $1,550,864 OF ALLOWANCES.
<F2>THE TOTAL COSTS INCLUDE LOSS PROVISION OF $219,806.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 403 

To authorize testimony, document production, and legal representation in 

United States v. Richard F. ‘‘Dickie’’ Scruggs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 21, 2012 

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize testimony, document production, and legal representation in United States v. Richard F. ‘‘Dickie’’ 

Scruggs. 

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Richard F. ‘‘Dickie’’ 

Scruggs, Case No. 3:09–CR–00002–GHD–SAA, pending 

in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, the defense has served a subpoena for 

testimony on Hugh Gamble, a former employee of Senator Trent Lott, and a subpoena for testimony and document production on Brad Davis, an employee of Senator 

Thad Cochran; 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) 

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent employees of the Senate with respect to any subVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:13 Mar 22, 2012 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR403.ATS SR403

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 403 ATS 

poena, order, or request for testimony relating to their 

official responsibilities; 

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States 

and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, be 

taken from such control or possession but by permission 

of the Senate; 

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will 

promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges 

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That Hugh Gamble, Brad Davis, and any 

2 other employee from whom testimony may be necessary 

3 are authorized to testify, and Brad Davis is authorized 

4 to produce documents, in the case of United States v. 

5 Richard F. ‘‘Dickie’’ Scruggs, except concerning matters 

6 for which a privilege should be asserted. 

7 SEC. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to 

8 represent Hugh Gamble, Brad Davis, and any other em9 ployee of the Senate from whom evidence may be sought, 

10 in connection with the testimony and document production 

11 authorized in section one of this resolution. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/27/06 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:585
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/27/06 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:586
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/27/06 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:587
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/27/06 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:588
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/27/06 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:589
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/27/06 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:590
#### WALSH, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 20, 1907.)

Action by Martin T. Walsh against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant' to abide the event, unless the plaintiff, within 20 days, stipulates to reduce the verdict to the sum of $50 as of the date of the rendition thereof, in which event the judgment is modified accordingly, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.

ROBSON, J., dissents, and votes for affirming.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7198

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ERIC FORWARD SANDERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-89-395, CA-97-3186-6-13AK) Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 4, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Forward Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Eric Forward Sanders seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Sanders , Nos. CR-89-395, CA-97-3186-6-13AK (D.S.C. June 15, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kelly Green, Appellant.

[941 NYS2d 858]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rienzi, J.), dated December 15, 2010, which denied his motion for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46 on his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, which sentence was originally imposed, upon a jury verdict, on June 1, 1989.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

Notwithstanding the defendant’s positive achievements while incarcerated, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46. The defendant had prior convictions for robbery in the second degree and assault in the second degree, and a prior juvenile delinquency adjudication for an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of murder in the second degree. In addition, the defendant received disciplinary tickets for 38 tier II and 7 tier III infractions during his incarceration, including multiple tickets for fighting, harassment, making threats, violent conduct, and lewd conduct. Under the circumstances, substantial justice dictated that the motion be denied *(see People v Myles,*90 AD3d 952, 953-954 [2011]; *People v Miller,*88 AD3d 1015, 1016 [2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 860 [2011]; *People v Karim,*85 AD3d 943, 944 [2011]). Florio, J.P., Balkin, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 30 Misc 3d 1204(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 5226KU).]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v San Roc Restaurant, Inc., Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (McMahon, J.), rendered February 26, 1985, convicting it of theft of services, after a nonjury trial, and imposing a fine of $5,000.

Judgment affirmed.

The defendant contends on appeal that the People failed to satisfy their burden of proving its guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. The trial court here, after considering all the evidence, could have reasonably credited the testimony of the People’s witnesses and conclude that only the defendant’s *761agents and employees had access to the room in the restaurant where the electrical meter was located, that the broken seals on the equipment, scratches, and other damage to the dial hands and dial face on the meter were the result of tampering by an agent or employee of the defendant. The substantially reduced electrical consumption recorded on the meter between April 1981 and April 1982 was further proof of tampering. Since such proof is presumptive evidence pursuant to Penal Law § 165.15 (5) that the person for whom the service is provided created the existing condition with an intent to avoid payment, the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the People, is legally sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621).

The defendant also argues that the People were improperly permitted to introduce evidence that a 1976 inspection by Con Edison had found that certain switches in the meter at the restaurant were open, with the result that the meter had ceased to register electrical consumption. The People sought to have the evidence of the prior act admitted on the ground that it tends to establish intent to commit the present crime, absence of mistake, and a common plan or scheme *(see, People v Molineux,*168 NY 264, 293). However, the People failed to prove that the defendant had tampered with the equipment and hence did not establish the requisite connection between the defendant and the prior act *(see,*Penal Law § 165.15 [5]). The proffered evidence should therefore have been excluded. Nevertheless, we conclude, in this nonjury trial, that, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, the error was harmless and does not mandate reversal *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 242).

We have considered the remainder of defendant’s contentions and have found them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Thompson and Brown, JJ., concur.
# Official Journal C 296/1 De

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 296 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 471 December 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 296

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 471 December 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 296/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2004/C 296/2 | Types of gas and the corresponding supply pressures according to Article 2(2) of Council Directive 90/396/EEC of 29 June 1990 | 2 |
| 2004/C 296/3 | Notice concerning anti-dumping measures in force in respect of imports into the Community of furfuryl alcohol originating in the People's Republic of China: Modification of the name of a company with an individual anti-dumping duty rate | 8 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2004/C 296/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2004/C 296/2

Types of gas and the corresponding supply pressures according to Article 2(2) of Council Directive 90/396/EEC of 29 June 1990

2

2004/C 296/3

Notice concerning anti-dumping measures in force in respect of imports into the Community of furfuryl alcohol originating in the People's Republic of China: Modification of the name of a company with an individual anti-dumping duty rate

8

---

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 296/4 | Calls for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’ — Activity: thematic priority area: information society technologies — Call identifier: FP6-2004-IST-4 — Call identifier: FP6-2002-IST-C | 9 |

III   Notices

Commission

2004/C 296/4

Calls for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’ — Activity: thematic priority area: information society technologies — Call identifier: FP6-2004-IST-4 — Call identifier: FP6-2002-IST-C

9

---

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

EN