alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lucia Hernandez, as Administratrix for the Estate of Sonia Garcia, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v Alex Chaparro, Defendant, and City of New York et al., Appellants.

[944 NYS2d 879] —

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered March 4, 2011, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as untimely served and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to serve a late verified complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion, pursuant to CPLR 3012, in denying the motion and granting the cross motion *(see Lisojo v Phillip,*188 AD2d 369, [1992]). In light of the complexity of the guardianship and estate proceedings preceding service of the complaint, there appears to be a reasonable excuse for the delay *(id.).*Further, considering plaintiff’s handicap as an administrator and guardian *(see Santana v Prospect Hosp.,*84 AD2d 714, 714 [1981]), as well as the lack of discovery from defendants, plaintiff’s affidavit of merit contained “evidentiary facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case” *(Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells,*64 NY2d 904, 905 [1985]). Moreover, defendants’ failure to show any prejudice *746strongly favors excuse of plaintiffs failure to timely serve the complaint *(Lisojo,*188 AD2d at 369; *Santana,*84 AD2d at 714-715). Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

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 on Form 10-QSB of OmniComm Systems,
Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, being, Ronald T. Linares, Chief Financial 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 results of operations of
the Company.

|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Ronald T. Linares                     
|                                          
|Ronald T. Linares                         
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                                          
|November 14, 2003                         

43
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 American Commerce Solutions, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel L. Hefner, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director 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, to my 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: February 27, 2013

/s/ Daniel L. HefnerDaniel L. HefnerChief Executive Officer, President and Director
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: August 7, 2014 517138 

________________________________

In the Matter of the Claim of 

ANDREW FRASER,

Appellant,

v

NYC SCHOOLS CONSTRUCTION ROCIP MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

et al.,

Respondents.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: June 2, 2014

Before: Stein, J.P., McCarthy, Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________

Law Offices of Joseph Romano, Yonkers (Anthony BrooksMorgese of counsel), for appellant.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Iris

A. Steel of counsel), for Workers' Compensation Board,

respondent.

__________

Lynch, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board,

filed October 29, 2012, which, among other things, denied

claimant's request for a change of venue.

Claimant, who resides in Suffolk County, filed a claim for

workers' compensation benefits alleging that he was injured in

the course of his employment as an ironworker in New York City. 

Claimant signed a form, provided by his attorneys, that gave him
-2- 517138 

three choices of hearing venue preference in Westchester County

or Rockland County; claimant circled "White Plains." The

Workers' Compensation Board denied the change of venue "request"

and assessed a penalty against claimant's counsel pursuant to

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii) for seeking review

without reasonable grounds. Claimant appeals, challenging both

the denial of venue transfer and the penalty.

Generally, the chair of the Board is authorized to set the

time and location for Board hearings (see Workers' Compensation

Law § 141; 12 NYCRR 300.7; Matter of Toledo v Administration for

Children's Servs., 112 AD3d 1209, 1210 [2013]). Inasmuch as

claimant failed to demonstrate any connection to White Plains and

argued only that such requests should be granted to "accommodate

. . . the idiosyncrasies of each claimant," the Board properly

determined that claimant failed to articulate any justification

for a change in venue (see Matter of Toledo v Administration for

Children Servs., 112 AD3d at 1210; Matter of Wolfe v New York

City Dept. of Corr., 112 AD3d 1197, 1198 [2013]). Moreover,

given the absence of a legitimate basis for seeking the venue

change and the fact that the Board had previously rejected

several other similar venue change requests by counsel (see e.g.

Matter of Stewart v NYC Tr. Auth., 115 AD3d 1046, 1046-1047

[2014]), substantial evidence supports the Board's determination

that a penalty was warranted because there was no reasonable

basis to support the appeal to the Board (see Matter of Toledo v

Administration for Children Servs., 112 AD3d at 1210; Matter of

Banton v New York City Dept. of Corr., 112 AD3d 1195, 1196-1197

[2013]). Accordingly, we will not disturb the Board's decision.

Stein, J.P., McCarthy, Garry and Devine, JJ., concur.
-3- 517138 

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NOS. WR-91,753-01 & - 02

EX P ARTE JARIOUS ZSONTAE WILL IAMS, Appli cant

ON AP P LICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NOS. 369CR-18-33939-A & 369CR- 16-32725-A IN THE 3RD DIST RICT COURT F ROM AND ERSON COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant pleade d g uilty to two drug offe nses and was sentenc ed to imp ri s o n m en t. Applicant, throug h habea s counsel, filed these application for writs of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded them to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant contends, among o th er things, that his pleas wer e involuntary beca use trial counsel provided ineffe ctive assistance

. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Hi l l v. L ockhart , 474 U.S. 52 (1985); Ex parte Argent , 393 S.W .3d 781 (Tex. Crim. App. 2 0 1 3 ). Acc ording ly , the rec ord should be develope d. The trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall o rd er t ri al co u nsel to2

respond to Applicant’s claims of ineffe ctive assistance by ex p l ai ning counsel’s repr esenta tion of Applicant, including applicable s t ra t egy and tactical decisions. I n developing the record, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall m ak e fi n dings of fac t and conclusions of law reg arding Applicant’s habea s claims

. T h e t ri al court may also make any other finding s and conclusions that it deems appropr iate. The trial court shall make findings of fac t and c o n cl usions of l aw within ninety day s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motions, objections, proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transc ripts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: Oc tober 21, 2020 Do not publish
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC ,

Appellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 15

- 2892
PAUL J. KELLY AND BETH A. KELLY ,

Appellee s

. ________________________________/ Opinion filed July 29, 2016 Appeal from the Circuit Court for S eminole County , Edwin P.B. Sanders , Senior Judge. Nancy M. Wallace, of Akerman LLP, Tallahassee, and William P. Heller, of Akerman LLP, Fort Lauderdale, and Eric M. Levine, of Akerman LLP, West Palm, for Appellant.
De bi V. Rumph, of the Law Offices of Debi V. Rumph, Orlando, for Appellees.

EDWARDS , J. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, (“Nationstar”) appeals the involuntary dismissal of its foreclosure action against Paul J. Kelly and Beth A. Kelly (collectively "Appellees"), on the ground th at it did not have standing to foreclos e . The evidence admitted at trial proved
that the mortgage and note were validly assigned pre - suit by MERS, as nominee for the2

original payee, to the original foreclosure plaintiff. The original plaintiff then assigned the mortgage and n ote to Nationstar , which was subsequently substituted as the party plaintiff

. At trial, Nationstar proved that Appellees defaulted on the loan and that they
received a notice of default and acceleration of the loan.
T he trial court correctly rejected Nationstar's first asserted basis of standing by ruling that mere possession of the blank

- indorsed note did not prove Nationstar 's standing because someone other than the original payee initially indorsed the note

. 1 However, the
tr ial court erred when it failed to find that Nationstar had standing to foreclose despite proof of valid, timely assignments of the note and mortgage. T his Court held in Taylor v.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. , 44 So. 3d 618, 622

- 23 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) , that evidence of a valid pre

- suit assignment of the note and mortgage from the original payee or its nominee, MERS, to the foreclosure plaintiff was sufficient proof that the plaintiff held the note and mortgage and had standing to foreclose

. Natio nstar, throug h its documents
and witness , established an unbroken chain of valid and timely assignments of the mortgage and note; therefore, the trial court erred in ruling that Nationstar had not proved standing. Because Nationstar had standing to foreclose , the tria l court erred by ordering an involuntary dismissal

. W e reverse and remand for a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LAWSON, C.J. , and WALLIS, J. , concur.

1 Nationstar admitted that the payee and the entity that indorsed the note were two different companies with similar names, but did not explain why that occurred or how it could be a valid indorsement.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Billy D. Prim, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Blue Rhino Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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 officers 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 recently
completed fiscal quarter 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 officers 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 registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

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: March 11, 2004

                                        /s/ Billy D. Prim
                                        -----------------

                                        Billy D. Prim
                                        Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
ACCEPTED

12-14-00015-CV

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

3/16/2015 2:59:54 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 3/16/2015 2:59:54 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
#### In the Matter of Brandon M. and Another, Infants. Luis M., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 79]

Appeal from order, Family Court, Bronx County (Karen Lupuloff, J.), entered on or about March 7, 2011, which directed respondent father to stay away from and not communicate with the subject children, except for agency-supervised visits if requested by the children, until March 6, 2012, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

Because the order of protection has expired, this appeal is moot *(see Matter of Diallo v Diallo,*68 AD3d 411 [2009], *lv dismissed*14 NY3d 854 [2010]).

Contrary to respondent’s contentions, the order of disposition is not properly before this Court since the notice of appeal makes no reference to that order and only attached the order of protection *(see*CPLR 5515 [1]; *Matter of Peter GG.,*36 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2007]).

Were we to reach the merits, we would find that a preponderance of the evidence establishes that respondent sexually abused his step granddaughter (Family Ct Act § 1012 [e] [iii]; § 1046 [b] [i]). The step granddaughter’s out-of-court statements to the social worker and in medical records were admitted without objection in the joint proceedings against respondent and the girl’s parents. These statements sufficiently corroborated the out-of-court statement of one of the subject children that he saw respondent with his hand down the front of his step granddaughter’s pants, while respondent’s pants were open *(see Matter of Anahys V. [John V.],*68 AD3d 485, 486 [2009], *lv denied*14 NY3d 705 [2010]).

The derivative finding that respondent abused and neglected his biological children based on the finding that he sexually abused his stepgrandchild is also supported by a preponderance of the evidence *(see*Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]). One of the subject children witnessed the sexual abuse and the other child was present in the apartment at the time the abuse took place. Respondent’s actions demonstrated that he has a fundamental *521defect in his understanding of his parental obligations (see *Matter of Marino S.,*100 NY2d 361, 373-375 [2003]).

Contrary to respondent’s contention, the court was entitled to draw a negative inference against him based on his failure to testify in the proceedings (see *Matter of Dashawn W. [Antoine N.],*73 AD3d 574, 575 [2010], *lv dismissed*16 NY3d 767 [2011]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, DeGrasse, Mazanet-Daniels and Roman, JJ.
# EUR-Lex - 52006AP0396 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006AP0396

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Singapore on certain aspects of air services (COM(2005)0513 - C6-0165/2006 - 2005/0208(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 308 E , 16/12/2006 P. 0082 - 0082 *

P6_TA(2006)0396

Agreement between the EC and Singapore on certain aspects of air services *

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Singapore on certain aspects of air services (COM(2005)0513 — C6-0165/2006 — 2005/0208(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2005)0513) [1],

- having regard to Articles 80(2) and 300(2), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0165/2006),

- having regard to Rules 51 and 83(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6-0295/2006),

1. Approves conclusion of the agreement;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Republic of Singapore.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
# EUR-Lex - 52006AP0560 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006AP0560

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Globalisation adjustment Fund (COM(2006)0091 - C6-0082/2006 - 2006/0033(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 317 E , 23/12/2006 P. 0432 - 0432 *

20061223

P6_TA(2006)0560

Establishing the European Globalisation adjustment Fund ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Globalisation adjustment Fund (COM(2006)0091 — C6-0082/2006 — 2006/0033(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0091) [1],

- having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 159(3) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0082/2006),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on International Trade and the Committee on Budgets (A6-0385/2006);

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

[1] Not yet published in the OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
Bank
of China Credit Loan certificate

    


    
      
        
          
            
              
                
                  
                    
                      
                        	      
                                Credit Ref.: Loan
      Agreement 08854472

                              	
                                 

                                Date: August 19,
      2008

                                                    /s/Bank’s
      Seal

                              
	
                                Credit
      Account:

                                Account Name: Shenzhen
      BAK Battery Co., Ltd.

                                Amount: RMB THIRTY
      MILLION ONLY