alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
V 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5326 

To liquidate or reliquidate certain entries of truck tires. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2008 

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To liquidate or reliquidate certain entries of truck tires. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LIQUIDATION OR RELIQUIDATION OF CERTAIN 

4 ENTRIES OF TRUCK TIRES. 

5 (a) LIQUIDATION OR RELIQUIDATION REQUIRED.— 

6 Notwithstanding sections 514 and 520 of the Tariff Act 

7 of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514 and 1520), or any other provi8 sion of law, U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall, 

9 not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment 

10 of this Act— 

11 (1) liquidate or reliquidate as free of duty each 

12 entry described in subsection (b) containing any 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5326 IH

1 merchandise which, at the time of original liquida2 tion, was merchandise eligible for duty-free treat3 ment under title V of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 

4 U.S.C. 2461 et seq.); and 

5 (2) refund any duties and interest paid on such 

6 entries. 

7 (b) AFFECTED ENTRIES.—The entries referred to in 

8 subsection (a) are the following: 

Port Code Entry Number Date of Entry 

2704 EA1–0153651–7 11/03/2004 

2704 EA1–0153788–7 10/10/2004 

2704 EA1–0154063–4 11/24/2004 

2704 EA1–0154174–9 12/01/2004 

2704 EA1–0154298–6 12/08/2004 

2704 EA1–0154438–8 12/15/2004 

2704 EA1–0154567–4 12/22/2004 

2704 EA1–0154675–5 12/29/2004 

2704 EA1–0154802–5 01/05/2005 

2704 EA1–0154944–5 01/12/2005 

2704 EA1–0155108–6 01/19/2005 

2704 EA1–0155204–3 01/26/2005 

2704 EA1–0155329–8 02/02/2005 

2704 EA1–0155440–3 02/09/2005 

2704 EA1–0155577–2 02/16/2005 

2704 EA1–0155668–9 02/23/2005 

2704 EA1–0155775–2 03/04/2005 

2704 EA1–0155838–8 03/09/2005 

2704 EA1–0155933–7 03/16/2005 

2704 EA1–0156034–3 03/23/2005 

2704 EA1–0156298–4 04/06/2005 

2704 EA1–0156435–2 04/14/2005 

2704 EA1–0156536–7 04/20/2005 

2704 EA1–0156651–4 04/27/2005 

2704 EA1–0156804–9 05/04/2005 

2704 EA1–0156935–1 05/11/2005 

2704 EA1–0157087–0 05/18/2005 

2704 EA1–0157220–7 05/25/2005 

2704 EA1–0157347–8 06/01/2005 

2704 EA1–0157475–7 06/08/2005 

2704 EA1–0157605–9 06/15/2005 

2704 EA1–0157739–6 06/22/2005 

2704 EA1–0157892–3 06/29/2005 

2704 EA1–0158016–8 07/06/2005 

2704 EA1–0158147–1 07/13/2005 

2704 EA1–0158282–6 07/20/2005 

2704 EA1–0158393–1 07/27/2005 

2704 EA1–0158567–0 08/03/2005 

2704 EA1–0158669–4 08/10/2005 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5326 IH

Port Code Entry Number Date of Entry 

2704 EA1–0158847–6 08/17/2005 

2704 EA1–0158996–1 08/24/2005 

2704 EA1–0159133–0 09/07/2005 

2704 EA1–0159264–3 09/07/2005 

2704 EA1–0159407–8 09/14/2005 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
NO. 07-10-0234-CV 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL B 

JULY 13, 2010 

In re JOHNNY LEE REY, Relator 

Memorandum Opinion 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

Pending before the court is the petition of Johnny Lee Rey for a writ of 

mandamus. Rey asks that we direct the Honorable Ana Estevez, District Judge, 251st 

Judicial District, to act upon a pending motion and to void an “Order to Withdraw Inmate 

Funds” (Order to Withdraw). We deny the petition. 

 The motion in question involved Rey’s effort to have the trial court vacate the 

aforementioned Order to Withdraw. The trial court acted upon that motion by denying it 

on June 25, 2010. A true and correct copy of that order is attached to this opinion as 

exhibit A. Thus, the portion of Rey’s petition asking us to direct the trial court to act 

upon his motion is now moot. 

To the extent that the trial court issued the Order to Withdraw and now denied 

Rey’s motion to strike or otherwise vacate it, the appropriate avenue for relief available 

to him is via appeal. Harrel v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 321 (Tex. 2009). Since the 
2 

Texas Supreme Court has so held, he has an adequate remedy of law and, therefore, is 

not entitled to relief via mandamus. 

 The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. 

 Per Curiam 
3
EXHIBIT 23.1

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report dated February 24, 2000 with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule included in this Form 10-K, into the
Company's previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No.
333-16385, File No. 333-35937, File No. 333-56171, and File No. 333-75945).


                                                  /s/ PISENTI AND BRINKER LLP
                                            ----------------------------------
                                                      PISENTI AND BRINKER LLP

Santa Rosa, California
March 24, 2001
EXHIBIT
31.1


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Antonio F. Uccello, III, Chief Executive Officer certify that:





1.           I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of INTERNATIONAL CONSOLIDATED
COMPANIES, INC.





2.           Based
on my knowledge, this annual 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 quarterly
report;





3.           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;





4.           The
Registrant’s other certifying officers and I am responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I have:





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





(b)           evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a
date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and





(c)           presented
in this annual report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;





5.           The
Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls;





(b) and any fraud, whether or not
material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrant's internal controls; and





6.           The
Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Dated:
August 19,
2008





/s/Antonio F. Uccello,
III


Antonio
F. Uccello, III


Chief
Executive Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JAIME EMERSON GARCIA- ) CARMONA, DOC #X75300, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D15-4808 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed October 19, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Wayne M. Durden, Judge. Ita M. Neymotin, Regional Counsel, Fort Myers, and Stacy L. Sherman, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and C. Todd Chapman, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MORRIS, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5246 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5246

           To suspend temporarily the duty on acid black 132.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2008

   Mr. Watt introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To suspend temporarily the duty on acid black 132.

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

SECTION 1. ACID BLACK 132.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.03.59 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to acid black 132) is amended 
by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

I, Bernard C. Bailey, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

1. The accompanying amended annual report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2005 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 such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Viisage Technology, Inc.



Date: May 5, 2006/s/    BERNARD C.
BAILEYBernard C. Bailey President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of this report.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5395 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

11001 Dunklin Drive in St. Louis, Missouri, as the ‘‘William ‘Bill’ 

Clay Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2008 

Mr. CARNAHAN (for himself, Mr. CLAY, Mr. COSTELLO, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. 

SKELTON, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. RUSH, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Ms. WATERS, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. AKIN, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. SOLIS, 

Mr. BECERRA, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, and Mr. LEWIS of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 11001 Dunklin Drive in St. Louis, Missouri, 

as the ‘‘William ‘Bill’ Clay Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. WILLIAM ‘‘BILL’’ CLAY POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 11001 Dunklin Drive in St. 

6 Louis, Missouri, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘William ‘Bill’ Clay Post Office Building’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5395 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘William ‘Bill’ Clay 

5 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
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 Apple REIT Six, Inc., (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material
respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company as of March 31, 2005, and for the period then ended.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Glade M. Knight    
|Glade M. Knight        
|Chief Executive Officer



May 5, 2005



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ Bryan Peery         
|Bryan Peery             
|Chief Accounting Officer



May 5, 2005
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5344 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid, dimethylamine salt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2008 

Mrs. BIGGERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-Methyl4-chlorophenoxy-acetic acid, dimethylamine salt. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. 2–METHYL-4-CHLOROPHENOXY-ACETIC ACID, 

4 DIMETHYLAMINE SALT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.25.42 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxy-acetic acid, dimethylamine salt) 

8 is amended by striking the date in the effective period col9 umn and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5344 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
FAKHOURY v. FAKHOURY.

No. COA04-1514.

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed August 2, 2005.

Certification Date August 22, 2005.

Appeal from the Wake (02CVD15522)

Case reported without published opinion Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Helicos BioSciences Corporation (the "Company") for the
period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Ronald A. Lowy, the Principal Executive Officer of the Company and
Jeffrey R. Moore, the Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to our knowledge that:



Dated: November 9, 2009

/s/ RONALD A. LOWY Ronald A. Lowy Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)Dated: November 9, 2009

/s/ JEFFREY R. MOORE Jeffrey R. Moore Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)


---



QuickLinks
STATE v. COTTEN.

No. COA04-1112.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 5, 2005.

Certification Date July 25, 2005.

Appeal from the Halifax (02CRS57253).

Case without published opinion. No error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Derrick Talmadge HEAD.

No. 12P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 3, 2005.

Kelly D. Miller, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Derrick Talmadge Head.

Linda Kimbell, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 7th day of January 2005 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of March 2005."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of January 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 3rd day of March 2005."
Paul J. MATHEWSON v. Stephen CARTER, Holden Farm Property Management Partnership.

No. 424P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 3, 2005.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for Stephen Carter.

*586Rodney W. Robinson, for Mathewson.

*AMENDED ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of August 2005 by Defendant (Stephen Carter) 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 3rd day of November 2005."
EXHIBIT 32.2

Section 1350 Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

In connection with the Annual Report of Rofin-Sinar Technologies Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ingrid Mittelstaedt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
|

|Date: November 29, 2007 |     |                         | 
|----------------------- | --- | ----------------------- | 
|                        | /s/ | Ingrid Mittelstaedt     | 
|                        |     | Ingrid Mittelstaedt     | 
|                        |     | Chief Financial Officer | 

---
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 129 (Thursday, July 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 40542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14475]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK SEP High Risk 
Multi-Center Clinical Study Cooperative Agreement U01 & U34.
    Date: July 28, 2022.
    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement 
applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, NIDDK, 6707 Democracy 
Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Cheryl Nordstrom, Ph.D., MPH, Scientific Review 
Officer, NIDDK/Scientific Review Branch, National Institutes of 
Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Room 7013, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-
402-6711, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b7d4dfd2c5cedb99d9d8c5d3c4c3c5d8daf7d9dedf99d0d8c1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8eede6ebfcf7e2a0e0e1fceafdfafce1e3cee0e7e6a0e9e1f8">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 1, 2022.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-14475 Filed 7-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Issam Elder, Appellant, v David Elder, Defendant, and John Palanca, Respondent.

[802 NYS2d 457]

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of a certain parcel of real property, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated July *3, 2003,*as denied that branch of *his*motion which was for leave to renew his motion to stay enforcement proceedings in a related action entitled *Palanca v Elder,*pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under index No. 14619/99, which was determined by order of the same court dated May 17, 2002.

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

“ ‘[A] motion for leave to renew must be supported by new or additional facts which, although in existence at the time of [the] prior motion, were not made known to the party seeking renewal, and consequently, not made known to the court’ ” *(Matter of Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. v Frenkel,*8 AD3d 390, 391 [2004], quoting *Brooklyn Welding Corp. v Chin,*236 AD2d 392 [1997]). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to renew since it was based on evidence that, with due diligence, could have been discovered earlier *(see Kaufman v Kunis,*14 AD3d 542 [2005]; *Dahlin v Paladino,*14 AD3d 647 [2005]; *Yarde v New York City Tr. Auth.,*4 AD3d 352 [2004]).

Moreover, “[t]o the extent that the new materials were matters of public record available before the court issued its decision . . . they could not serve as a proper basis for a motion to renew” *(Welch Foods v Wilson,*247 AD2d 830, 831 [1998]). A motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation *(see Renna v Gullo,*19 AD3d 472 [2005]; *Rubinstein v Goldman,*225 AD2d 328 [1996]; *Hart v*
      *1056
      *City of New York,*5 AD3d 438 [2004]). The appellant failed to offer a reasonable justification as to why the proffered evidence was not submitted at the time of the prior motion. Accordingly, that branch of the motion which was for leave to renew was properly denied. Adams, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.