alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Angela Moray, as Administratrix of the Estate of Gerard Moray, Deceased, Respondent, v City of Yonkers et al., Appellants.

[944 NYS2d 210]—

*969In a consolidated action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, etc., the defendant City of Yonkers appeals, as limited by its brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated November 18, 2010, which, inter alia, denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged that it was negligent for failing to properly supervise the plaintiff’s decedent, and the defendant Ahmed Hakki appeals from stated portions of the same order which, among other things, denied that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged medical malpractice against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff, Angela Moray, was married to the decedent, Gerard Moray, who was employed as a police officer by the defendant City of Yonkers, and under the psychiatric care of the defendant Ahmed Hakki, when he shot and injured her and then fatally shot himself. The plaintiff contended, among other things, that the City was negligent in failing to properly supervise the decedent, and that Hakki’s treatment of the decedent was negligent.

The City failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the plaintiffs allegations that City’s failure to remove the decedent’s service revolver and refer him for a mental evaluation were proximate causes of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff when the decedent shot her, and of the decedent’s suicide *(cf. Cygan v City of New York,*165 AD2d 58 [1991]). In light of the City’s failure to make a prima facie showing, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of Hakki’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged medical malpractice against him. Although Hakki made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with the affidavit of his expert witness, demonstrating that he did not depart from good and accepted psychiatric care in his treatment of the decedent, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact in response to that showing, with the affidavit of her expert witness. Summary judgment should not be awarded with respect to a medical malpractice *970cause of action where the parties adduce conflicting opinions of medical experts *(see McKenzie v Clarke,*77 AD3d 637, 638 [2010]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Eng, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 1 of 28 PageID #:67

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 2 of 28 PageID #:68

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 3 of 28 PageID #:69

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 4 of 28 PageID #:70

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 5 of 28 PageID #:71

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 6 of 28 PageID #:72

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 7 of 28 PageID #:73

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 8 of 28 PageID #:74

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 9 of 28 PageID #:75

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 10 of 28 PageID #:76

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 11 of 28 PageID #:77

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 12 of 28 PageID #:78

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 13 of 28 PageID #:79

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 14 of 28 PageID #:80

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 15 of 28 PageID #:81

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 16 of 28 PageID #:82

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 17 of 28 PageID #:83

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 18 of 28 PageID #:84

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 19 of 28 PageID #:85

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 20 of 28 PageID #:86

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 21 of 28 PageID #:87

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 22 of 28 PageID #:88

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 23 of 28 PageID #:89

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 24 of 28 PageID #:90

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 25 of 28 PageID #:91

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 26 of 28 PageID #:92

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 27 of 28 PageID #:93

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/12/03 Page 28 of 28 PageID #:94
Case 1:03-cv-07749 Document 9 Filed 02/19/04 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:03-cv-07749 Document 9 Filed 02/19/04 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:03-cv-07749 Document 9 Filed 02/19/04 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:03-cv-07749 Document 9 Filed 02/19/04 Page 4 of 4
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Silverleaf Resorts, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2000 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert E. Mead, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.

Dated:  November 19, 2002                                     /s/ ROBERT E. MEAD
                                                              ------------------
                                                              Robert E. Mead
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shawn Jackson, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Mazur, J.), rendered on October 23, 1984, 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—Sandler, J. P., Asch, Lynch, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.
# Official Journal C 251/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.251.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 251 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5427 August 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.251.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 251

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5427 August 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 251/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2011/C 251/02 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position at its meeting of 2 May 2011 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.796 — Suez Environnement — Breach of seal — Rapporteur: Czech Republic | 2 |
| 2011/C 251/03 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Case COMP/39.796 — Suez Environnement — Breach of seal | 3 |
| 2011/C 251/04 | Summary of the Commission Decision of 24 May 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Case COMP/39.796 — Suez Environnement — Breach of seal) (notified under document C(2011) 3640 final) | 4 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2011/C 251/01

Euro exchange rates

1

2011/C 251/02

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position at its meeting of 2 May 2011 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.796 — Suez Environnement — Breach of seal — Rapporteur: Czech Republic

2

2011/C 251/03

Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Case COMP/39.796 — Suez Environnement — Breach of seal

3

2011/C 251/04

Summary of the Commission Decision of 24 May 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Case COMP/39.796 — Suez Environnement — Breach of seal) (notified under document C(2011) 3640 final)

(notified under document C(2011) 3640 final)

4

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 251/05 | Publication of an amendment application in accordance with Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed | 6 |

V   Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2011/C 251/05

Publication of an amendment application in accordance with Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed

6

---

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

EN
(February 18, 1986)

#### Karl Andrade, Appellant, v Consolidated Edison Company, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kunzeman, J.), entered June 19, 1984, which granted the respondent’s motion to set aside a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor in the principal sum of $35,700, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered August 7, 1984, upon that order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.

Appeal from the order dismissed *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248).

Judgment affirmed.

The respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The respondent owed no duty to the plaintiff, a noncustomer, who was injured in the stairwell of his apartment building during the 1977 blackout in New York City *(see,*
      *696
      *Strauss v Belle Realty Co.,*65 NY2d 399). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Thompson and Brown, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT SPAULDING DECON, LLC, a Florida ) limited liability company, and LAURA ) SPAULDING, an Individual, ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-1038 ) FEDERATED NATIONAL INSURANCE ) COMPANY f/k/a AMERICAN VEHICLE ) INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida ) corporation, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed February 7, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Elizabeth G. Rice, Judge. Lisa A. Oonk of Lisa A. Oonk, P.A., Palm Harbor, for Appellants. Michael W. Baker of Bazinsky, Korman, & Baker, P.A., Plantation, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and SLEET and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Louis Racona, Jr., Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed *(see, People v Bouyea,*64 NY2d 1140). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Gorman, J. — burglary, first degree, and other offenses.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, O’Donnell and Pine, JJ.
|   | 1. | The      Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));      and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   |    /s/      Daniel R. Baty |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   | Daniel      R. Baty                       |
|   | Co-Chief      Executive Officer           |
|   | March      17, 2008                       |
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1337 Reported in Senate (RS)]






                                                       Calendar No. 270
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1337

                  For the relief of John Andre Chalot.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 1997

  Mr. Graham introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                            November 6, 1997

                Reported by Mr. Hatch, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
                  For the relief of John Andre Chalot.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF NATURALIZATION OF JOHN 
              ANDRE CHALOT.

    Notwithstanding title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
any predecessor provisions to such title, or any other provision of law 
relating to naturalization, for purposes of determining the eligibility 
of John Andre Chalot for relief under the Agreement Between the 
Government of the United States and the Government of the Federal 
Republic of Germany Concerning Final Benefits to Certain United States 
Nationals Who Were Victims of National Socialist Measures of 
Persecution, signed at Bonn on September 19, 1995, John Andre Chalot is 
deemed to be a naturalized citizen of the United States as of September 
3, 1943.
                                     





                                                       Calendar No. 270

105th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1337

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

                  For the relief of John Andre Chalot.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            November 6, 1997

                       Reported without amendment`
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

THOMAS ADAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

vs. )

) No. 02 C 8700

RICHARD CATRAMBONE and )

GREAT LAKES BUILDING ) Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez

MATERIALS, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

NOTICE OF MOTION

To: Richard Catrambone

10756 Wentworth Drive

Naperville, IL 60564

Lorrain Catrambone

10756 Wentworth Drive

Naperville, IL 60564

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 4, 2013 at 10:15 a.m., or as soon 

thereafter as counsel shall be heard, we will appear before the Honorable Magistrate 

Judge Maria Valdez presiding in Room 1041, of the 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, 

Illinois, and then and there present Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay of Proceedings, a 

copy of which accompanies this notice.

I certify that on May 24, 2013, the foregoing Plaintiff’s, Notice of Motion and 

Motion were filed electronically with the Court. Notice of this filing will be 

accomplished pursuant to ECF as to Filing Users and shall comply with Local Rule 5.5 as 

to any party who is not a Filing User or represented by a Filing User. Parties may access 

this filing through the Court's system. 

By: s/ Carlton Odim____________________ 

 Carlton Odim 

Odim Law Offices

225 West Washington Street, #2200

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

(312) 578-9390 - Tel 

(312) 578-9395 - Fax 

carlton@odimlaw.com

Case: 1:02-cv-08700 Document #: 339 Filed: 05/24/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1964
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 114 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 114

   To repeal the reduction in the deductible portion of expenses for 
                   business meals and entertainment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 21, 1997

  Mr. Inouye (for himself, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Stevens) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To repeal the reduction in the deductible portion of expenses for 
                   business meals and entertainment.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN BUSINESS MEALS AND ENTERTAINMENT TAX 
              DEDUCTION.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 274(n) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to only 50 percent of meal and 
entertainment expenses allowed as deduction) is amended by striking 
``50 percent'' and inserting ``80 percent''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for section 274(n) is 
amended by striking ``50'' and inserting ``80''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1996.
                                 <all>
```
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1202 Reported in Senate (RS)]






                                                       Calendar No. 603
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1202

  Providing relief for Sergio Lozano, Fauricio Lozano, and Ana Lozano.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 23, 1997

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                           September 24, 1998

                Reported by Mr. Hatch, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
  Providing relief for Sergio Lozano, Fauricio Lozano, and Ana Lozano.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Sergio Lozano, 
Fauricio Lozano, and Ana Lozano, shall be held and considered to have 
been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence as 
of the date of the enactment of this Act upon payment of the required 
visa fees.
                                     





                                                       Calendar No. 603

105th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1202

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  Providing relief for Sergio Lozano, Fauricio Lozano, and Ana Lozano.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 24, 1998

                       Reported without amendment`
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Anthony Jack, Respondent.

—Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Browne, J.), dated January 11, 1985, which granted the defendant’s oral motion to dismiss the indictment in the interest of justice.

Order reversed, on the law, oral motion denied, indictment reinstated without prejudice to the defendant’s right to move to dismiss the indictment upon proper papers, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings. Findings of fact have not been considered.

Pursuant to CPL 210.45 (1), a motion by a defendant to dismiss an indictment in the interest of justice must be made in writing and upon reasonable notice to the People. We have repeatedly held that it constitutes reversible error to grant such a motion upon *oral*application *(see, People v Banks,*93 AD2d 893; *People v Ray,*58 AD2d 588; *People v Orr,*53 AD2d 634; *People v Pichkur,*52 AD2d 852).

We find unpersuasive the defendant’s argument that the instant indictment was dismissed upon the court’s own motion. This contention is in direct conflict with the court’s written order which recites that the dismissal was granted upon "motion of the defendant”. In addition, the minutes of the argument before the court reveal that the defendant moved orally to dismiss the indictment, erroneously advised the court that an oral motion was sufficient, and presented the court with factors and argument in support of his motion. The court treated the motion as one by the defendant and dismissed the indictment over the People’s objection that the defendant had failed to give notice as required by CPL 210.45 (1).

The defendant cannot bypass the statutory notice requirements, as he attempted to do here, by simply requesting the trial court "on its own motion to dismiss the case”. We reject his contention that the indictment was dismissed, *sua sponte.*In any event, even a *sua sponte*dismissal must comport with the requirements of reasonable and specific notice to the People and a hearing "in order for there to be a full develop*754ment of the issues and an adequate opportunity for the People to contest the specific grounds asserted for dismissal” *(see, People v Vega,*80 AD2d 867; *People v Ramos,*94 AD2d 708; *People v Pichkur, supra; People v Kwok Ming Chan,*45 AD2d 613, 615; *People v Clayton,*41 AD2d 204, 207). Accordingly, even were we to deem the dismissal as upon the court’s own motion, these procedural deficiencies would still mandate reversal. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Thompson and Brown, JJ., concur.