alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - The Cavalier Group - Exhibit 4.2





 THE CAVALIER GROUP 

  INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WYOMING

  AUTHORIZED SHARES $0.001 PAR VALUE 

	 NUMBER  	 SHARES  
	  	 CUSIP 149506 10 7  

    
	  	 See Reverse For Certain Definitions  


 THIS CERTIFIES THAT 


Is The Owner of 


FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF $0.001 PAR VALUE COMMON 


STOCK OF 

 THE CAVALIER GROUP 

 transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by
  duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed.
  This Certificate and the shares represented hereby are subject to the laws of
  the State of Wyoming, and to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the
  Corporation, as now or hereafter amended. This certificate is not valid unless
  countersigned by the Transfer Agent. 

 WITNESS, the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the signatures
  of its duly authorized officers. 


Dated: 

	    /s/    Gerald 
      W. Williams	 Seal  	    /s/    Gerald 
      W. Williams
	 

      Secretary  	 President  











 THE CAVALIER GROUP 

 The following abbreviations when used in the inscription on the face of this
  certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according
  to applicable law or regulations: 

TEN COM - as tenants in common 

  TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties 

  JT TEN - as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common
  

  UNIF GIFT MIN ACT - ____________________ Custodian ____________________

  (Minor) under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act _________________ (State) 

Additional abbreviations may also be used though not
  in the above list. 

 For Value Received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto


	 
	 
	 (Please
      insert name and/or Social Security or other identifying number of Assignee). 
    
	 
	 
	 (Please
      print or typewrite name and address, including zip code of Assignee) 
	 
	 
	 
	_________________________________shares
      of the capital stock of _____________________________________________________
	represented by the within Certificate,
      and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint  
	 
	___________________________________________________________
      Attorney to transfer the said stock  on the books of the within-named
      Corporation, with full power of substitution in the premises.  
	 
	Dated at _____________________________
      , this  day of ______________ , 200__.  
	 




	 X  	  
	 (Signature of Assignor / Transferor) 



Notice: The signature to this Assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the face of this certificate in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatsoever. The signature(s) must be guaranteed by an eligible
guarantor institution (Banks, Stockbrokers, Savings and Loan Associations and Credit Unions with membership 

 Signature(s) Guaranteed by: 

 

 


__________________________________
 (Bank, Trust Company or Broker-Dealer) 

 TRANSFER FEE WILL APPLY
STATE v. HILL.

No. COA05-537.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 3, 2006.

Certification Date January 23, 2006.

Appeal from Halifax (04CRS56292).

Case without published opinion. No Prejudicial Error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Gregory WINSLOW.

No. 201A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

Richard E. Jester, for Robert G. Winslow.

Patricia A. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Frank R. Parrish, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Defendant on the 14th day of April 2005 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is *661"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th day of June 2005."

Accordingly, only those issues which are the basis of the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals shall be presented to this Court in briefs. The Defendant's new brief so limited in scope shall be filed with this Court not more that 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
Exhibit 31 (d)**CERTIFICATION**I, Craig D. Abolt, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MSW Energy Finance Co. II, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely 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 recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:November 9, 2005         By: /s/ Craig D. Abolt             Craig D. Abolt      Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  
35
A&F TRADEMARK v. TOLSON.

No. 23P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 3, 2005.

Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., Sean E. Andrussier, Raleigh, Paul H. Frankel, Hollis L. Hyans, Amy F. Nogid, New York, NY, for A&F Trademark, et al.

Kay Lynn Miller Hobart, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th day of January 2005 by Amici for Leave to File Memorandum of Amici Curiae:

"Motion Dismissed as Moot by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of March 2005."
STATE v. Monica D. BRANCH.

No. 95PA04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 26, 2005.

Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Branch.

Belinda J. Foster, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th day of April 2005 by Attorney General to Stay Mandate, to Reconsider, or to Remand to Court of Appeals:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of April 2005."
EXHIBIT 32.1  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 Wind Works Power Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31,  2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 operation of the Company.  3.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.    Date:  February 15, 2011  By: /s/ Ingo Stuckmann ------- ----------------- Ingo Stuckmann Chief Executive Officer
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT
                         -------------------------------




Board of Directors
St. Edmond's Federal Savings Bank

We have reviewed the accompanying  balance sheet of St. Edmond's Federal Savings
Bank  and  subsidiary  (the  "Bank")  as of  April  30,  2004,  and the  related
consolidated  statements of income for the  three-month  and  six-month  periods
ended April 30, 2004 and 2003, the consolidated  statement of cash flows for the
six-month periods ended April 30, 2004 and 2003, and the consolidated  statement
of changes in retained  earnings for the six-month  periods ended April 30, 2004
and 2003.  These  financial  statements  are the  responsibility  of the  Bank's
management.

We conducted  our review in  accordance  with  standards  of the Public  Company
Accounting  Oversight  Board  (United  States).  A review of  interim  financial
information consists principally of applying analytical  procedures to financial
data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible  for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with standards of the Public Company  Accounting  Oversight Board, the objective
of which is the  expression of an opinion  regarding  the  financial  statements
taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material  modifications that should
be made to the  accompanying  financial  statements for them to be in conformity
with generally accepted account- ing principles.

We have  previously  audited,  in  accordance  with the  standards of the Public
Company  Accounting  Oversight  Board (United  States),  the balance sheet as of
October 31, 2003, and the related consolidated  statements of income, changes in
retained earnings, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein)
and in our report dated  December  12, 2003,  except for Note 14 as to which the
date is  January  15,  2004,  we  expressed  an  unqualified  opinion  on  those
consolidated financial statements.


/s/S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.



Wexford, PA
May 5, 2004
NEBRASKA 

#43 

Ψϭ͘ς^WEd/E

STATE 

#43 

ϭ͘ϮйK&^dd'W

Ϭ͘ϯй

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING 

ΨΘϯϮ

PER RESIDENT 

#43 

ΨϬ͘ϳKEdZd

SPENDING 

#37 

ϭς͕ρϬϭEhDZK&

PERSONNEL 

#34 

ΨϬ͘εWZ^KEE>

SPENDING 

 DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĂŶĚ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͗ ϯй

ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͗ ςй

^ƵƉƉůŝĞƐĂŶĚ

ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ͗ ϭςй

^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ͗ ϳκй

By Service 

Army 

11% 

Navy/Marines 

2% 

Air Force 

79% 

Other Defense 

8% 

ůůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ͕LJdLJƉĞ

Reserve: 11% 

National 

Guard: 25% 

Active Duty: 38% 

dŽƉĞĨĞŶƐĞWĞƌƐŽŶŶĞů>ŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ

Civilian: 26% 

ůůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ͕By Service 

Army 

36% 

Navy/Marines 

6% 

Air Force 

58% 

Other Defense 

1% 

Top Defense Contractors ;DсŵŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

EŽƌƚŚƌŽƉ'ƌƵŵŵĂŶ ΨΘΘ͘ϯD

ĞƌďĞƌƵƐĂƉŝƚĂůDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ ΨϳΘ͘ϳD

WĞƌƐƉĞĐƚĂ Ψϳϳ͘ςD

'ĞŶĞƌĂůLJŶĂŵŝĐƐ Ψϯκ͘ϭD

^ƚĞƌůŝŶŐŽŵƉƵƚĞƌƐ Ψϭϳ͘ςD

^ƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĐWƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ/ŶĐ͘ Ψϭς͘εD

ĨŽŐŶĂŬEĂƟǀĞŽƌƉ͘ Ψϭρ͘ςD

EĂƟŽŶĂů^ƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĐZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ/ŶƐƟƚƵƚĞ Ψϭρ͘ϬD

ZĂLJƚŚĞŽŶ Ψϭκ͘ϳD

WƌŽͲDĂƌŬ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ Ψϭϯ͘ρD

Contract Awards Performed ;LJ&ŝƐĐĂůzĞĂƌ͕ďŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

ΨϬ͘ε

&zϭϮ &zϭϯ

ΨϬ͘ϳ

&zϭκ &zϭρ

ΨϬ͘ϳ ΨϬ͘ϳ ΨϬ͘ϳ ΨϬ͘ς ΨϬ͘ς

ΨϬ͘ϯ

&zϭς &zϭϳ &zϭΘ &zϭε

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

ΨεϭϬ͘ϭD/>>/KE ϭς͕ρϬϭ

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

ŽƵŶƚLJ

^ĂƌƉLJ

>ĂŶĐĂƐƚĞƌ

ŽƵŐůĂƐ

^ĂƵŶĚĞƌƐ

,Ăůů

ĚĂŵƐ

ŽĚŐĞ

WůĂƩĞ

DĂĚŝƐŽŶ

'ĂŐĞ

ĐƟǀĞ ŝǀŝůŝĂŶ EĂƟŽŶĂů ZĞƐĞƌǀĞ dŽƚĂů

ƵƚLJ 'ƵĂƌĚ

ς͕ϬκϬ Ϯ͕ςϭρ ϳε ςςϯ ε͕ϯεϳ

ϯε κΘς Ϯ͕Ϭϯϯ Ϯϭϭ Ϯ͕ϳςε

ερ εϬκ ϯρρ ρϯϮ ϭ͕ΘΘς

Ϭ ϯϯ ρςϯ Ϭ ρες

ϭς ϯς ϮςϬ Ϭ ϯϭϮ

Ϭ ϭΘ ϭΘϮ ϳϯ Ϯϳϯ

E E Ϭ Ϯϯς E

Ϭ E ϭϮϯ κε E

E E εϮ ϭε E

Ϭ E Θϭ ϯϬ E

72 KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨ>ŽĐĂůĞĨĞŶƐĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶͶĞĨĞŶƐĞ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐďLJ^ƚĂƚĞ͕&zϮϬϭε
FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018 I

NEBRASKA S CAL YEAR 2 0 1 8

FISCAL YEAR 2019 

ĞĚĂƌ

WůĂƚƚĞ

^ĂƵŶĚĞƌƐ

ŽƵŐůĂƐ

ƵĨĨĂůŽ ,Ăůů

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

dŚƵƌƐƚŽŶ

DĂĚŝƐŽŶ

>ĂŶĐĂƐƚĞƌ

ƵĨĨĂůŽ ,Ăůů

<ĞĂƌŶĞLJ 'ĂŐĞ

:ŽŚŶƐŽŶ

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS ;DсŵŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

^ĂƌƉLJ

>ĂŶĐĂƐƚĞƌ

ŽƵŐůĂƐ

DĂĚŝƐŽŶ

,Ăůů

dŚƵƌƐƚŽŶ

<ĞĂƌŶĞLJ

'ĂŐĞ

ƵīĂůŽ

:ŽŚŶƐŽŶ

;DсŵŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

ΨρκΘ͘ϬD

ΨρϮ͘κD

$47.7 M 

Ψϭϳ͘ςD

Ψρ͘ϯD

$4.2 M 

Ψϯ͘εD

Ψϯ͘ϭD

ΨϮ͘εD

ΨϮ͘εD

^ĂƌƉLJ

>ĂŶĐĂƐƚĞƌ

ŽƵŐůĂƐ

^ĂƵŶĚĞƌƐ

,Ăůů

ŽĚŐĞ

ĚĂŵƐ

ĞĚĂƌ

WůĂƩĞ

ƵīĂůŽ

Ψςρρ͘ΘD

ΨϭϬϬ͘ϯD

Ψεϳ͘ΘD

Ψϭκ͘ςD

Ψε͘ςD

Ψς͘ΘD

Ψρ͘ϭD

Ψκ͘ϭD

$2.7 M 

$2.7 M 

&ĐƚŝǀĞ &'ƵĂƌĚ &ZĞƐĞƌǀĞ ƌŵLJĐƚŝǀĞ ƌŵLJ'ƵĂƌĚ ƌŵLJZĞƐĞƌǀĞ DĐƚŝǀĞ EĂǀLJĐƚŝǀĞ t,^

^ĂƌƉLJ

^ĂƌƉLJ

ŽƵŐůĂƐ

>ĂŶĐĂƐƚĞƌ

ŽĚŐĞ

ĚĂŵƐ

KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨ >ŽĐĂůĞĨĞŶƐĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶͶĞĨĞŶƐĞ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐďLJ^ƚĂƚĞ͕&zϮϬϭε ϳϯ
fnd_Ex10_1



		

			Exhibit 10.1

		





		
			FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT
		

		
			 
		

		
			THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made this 11th day of March, 2019, by and between Floor and Decor Outlets of America, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Operating Company”), Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Holdings” and, together with the Operating Company, the “Company”), and George Vincent West, the undersigned individual (“Consultant”).
		

		
			 
		

		
			NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration, the mutual receipt and legal sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, parties hereby agree as follows:
		

		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 1.
			Consulting Fee.  The Consulting Fee referenced in Section 4(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended to the annual rate of $100,000, effective January 1, 2019.




		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 2.
			Miscellaneous. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, all of which shall constitute a single agreement, and may be executed and/or delivered via electronic means (via .PDF).  Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement and all terms, conditions, covenants and agreements thereof shall remain in full force and effect.




		
			 
		

		
			IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this Agreement as of the date first written above.
		

		
			 
		

		
			FLOOR AND DECOR OUTLETS OF AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			By:/s/ David V. Christopherson
		

		
			Name:  David V. Christopherson
		

		
			Title:    Executive Vice President & General Counsel
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			FLOOR & DECOR HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			By:/s/ David V. Christopherson
		

		
			Name:  David V. Christopherson
		

		
			Title:    Executive Vice President & General Counsel
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			GEORGE VINCENT WEST
		

		
			 
		

		
			/s/ George Vincent West
		


		 


		

			 

		


		

			7260/29169-012 CURRENT/102162039v1
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael R. ODEN.

No. 283P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

Michael R. Oden, Pro Se.

Christopher W. Brooks, Associate Deputy Attorney, Seth Edwards, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 24th day of May 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th day of June 2005."
STATE of North Carolina v. Antron Javon BRODIE.

No. 371P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

Matthew Wunsche, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Antron Javon Brodie.

Clinton Hicks, Assistant Attorney General, C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*882*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 26th day of July 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2005."
STATE v. FREEMAN

No. COA04-1617

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed November 1, 2005

Certification Date November 21, 2005

Appeal from Lenoir (03CRS54752, 04CRS311).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.
EXHIBIT 32.3

CERTIFICATION BY THE PRESIDENT AND 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 Visant Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 2,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Marc L. Reisch, the President and 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, as amended; 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: November 16, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Marc L. Reisch                                                                
|                        |  |  |  | Marc L. Reisch President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
INVESTORS TITLE INS. CO. v. STURDIVANT.

No. COA04-1427.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 6, 2005.

Certification September 26, 2005.

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
EMILY'S COOKIE MIX, INC. v. CORA LTD. PARTNERSHIP

No. COA04-1630.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed November 15, 2005.

Certification Date December 5, 2005

Appeal from the Alamance (03CVS1835).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit








AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This Amendment to Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) is dated effective July 18, 2019 and amends the Employment Agreement by and between Umpqua Holdings Corporation and the undersigned officer (as previously amended, the “Employment Agreement”).


1.    The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the term of the Employment Agreement, which is set to expire December 31, 2019.


2    The duration of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and extended to December 31, 2024, unless sooner terminated as set forth in the Employment Agreement.


3.    Except as specifically set forth herein, the Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and effect as written.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS CORPORATION


	
		
	By:
	 

	Name:
	 

	Title:
	 

	 
	 

	OFFICER

	 
	 

	 
	 

	Name:
	 

	 
	 

	 
	 














1
#### Uton Ferguson et al., Respondents, v Budget Rent-A-Car et al., Appellants, and Baxter Leach, Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 693]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W Hunter, Jr., J), entered March 8, 2004, which, inter alia, denied defendant rental agencies’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the agencies maintain that they may not be held liable as owners of the allegedly offending rental vehicle, the record discloses triable issues as to the vehicle’s ownership. The *731agencies’ corporate representative testified that defendant Leach’s rental agreement had been generated by the Ryder computer system and bore a Ryder number. The action as against Budget cannot be dismissed at this juncture since its corporate representative testified that Ryder had been merged with Budget, and accordingly Budget may have successor liability.

Triable issues of fact also precluded summary judgment dismissing the action upon the ground that plaintiffs had not, as a result of the accident, sustained serious injuries *(see*Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Plaintiffs’ expert conducted cervical and lumbosacral range-of-motion tests, compared each plaintiff’s ranges of motion to the norm, and designated numeric loss-of-range-of-motion percentages ranging from 25% to 50%. This evidence was sufficient to raise factual issues as to whether the alleged injuries are serious within the meaning of the statute *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345, 350 [2002]; *Lantigua v Williams,*305 AD2d 286 [2003]; *Ramos v Dekhtyar,*301 AD2d 428, 429 [2003]). Plaintiffs’ expert, on the basis of objective tests and examinations, also attributed each plaintiff’s pain, stiffness and range-of-motion limitations to injuries sustained in the alleged accident, and opined that plaintiffs’ injuries were permanent. He premised his conclusions additionally upon his review of contemporary MRIs, as well as treatment notes by other physicians, chiropractors and physical therapists.

While sustaining the action upon the aforementioned grounds, we note that the evidence does not disclose the existence of a triable issue as to whether plaintiffs were, by reason of injuries sustained in the alleged accident, prevented from performing substantially all of the material acts constituting their usual and customary activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days following the accident. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Ellerin and Sweeny, JJ.