alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Lillian Roberts, as Executive Director of District Council 37, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Lillian Roberts, as Executive Director of District Council 37, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[800 NYS2d 672]

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), entered February 4, 2004, dismissing the petitions bearing index numbers 127943/02 *(Roberts I)*and 103953/03 *(Roberts II),*unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Provisional employees “may be terminated at any time” *(Matter of Preddice v Callanan,*69 NY2d 812, 814 [1987]) unless “terminated in violation of a constitutional provision or some statute” (id.; *see also Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v County of Onondaga Sheriffs Dept.,*71 NY2d 623 [1988]). Petitioners allege that respondents violated various statutes and *330article *V,*§ 6 of the New York State Constitution. However, petitioners were not terminated in violation thereof.

Three of the four provisions on which the *Roberts II*petitioners rely (NY Const, art *V,*§ 6; Civil Service Law § 50 [1]; § 61 [1]) have nothing to do with terminations. While respondents retained petitioners beyond the statutory time limits in Civil Service Law § 65 (2) and (3), they did not terminate petitioners in violation thereof. In *Roberts I,*the alleged constitutional violation is the hiring of private contract workers, not the termination of petitioners. Similarly, the alleged violation of Social Services Law § 336-c (2) (e) is the use of welfare recipients participating in a work experience program, not the termination of petitioners.

*Roberts II*involves only provisional employees, and was properly dismissed. *Roberts I*identifies 250 provisional employees, specifically, 85 clerical associates, 73 clerical aides, 48 secretaries, 25 bookkeepers, 11 computer specialists and 8 computer technicians, for a total of 250 employees. The remaining 44 workers identified as being scheduled for termination are noncompetitive employees.* Because employees in the noncompetitive class are not protected by the Civil Service Law *(see Garner v Gunn,*131 AD2d 632 [1987]; *Matter of Tyson v Hess,*109 AD2d 1068, 1069-1070 [1985], *affd*66 NY2d 943 [1985]), *Roberts I*was also properly dismissed. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Sullivan and Catterson, JJ.

*

 The subsequent references to “259” provisional employees and a total of “303 employees targeted for layoff’ in the petition are apparently the result of typographical error as they are otherwise unexplained.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

Case No. 5D 22

- 454 LT Case No. 2021

- DR

- 4497

- HV SHERLEY DORLEANS ,

Appellant ,
v. JONATRICE ASHLY G ERMAIN ,

Appellee

.

__________________________ ____/ Decis ion filed October 25, 2 022 Appeal f rom t he Circuit C ourt for Osceola County , Michael J

. S nure , J udge. Donna G reenspan Solomon, of Solomon Appeals, Mediation & Arbitration, F t. Laude rdale, for A ppellant. No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CUR IAM. A FFIRMED.

COHEN , TRAVER and WOZNIAK , JJ., concur.
STATE v. Timothy Lee CREED.

No. 493P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th day of November 2008 by Defendant for "Petition for Discretionary Review or in the Alternative a Remedial Writ":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of February 2009."
Form of Senior Vice President Change of Control Agreement



 Exhibit 10.27 

 
 Schedule to Senior Vice President Change of Control
Agreement 
  
 The following is a list of our
officers who are party to the company’s Senior Vice President Change of Control Agreement, the form of which was filed as an exhibit to the company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending 12/27/2008: 

 
 David Brady 

Mark Casey 
 Arthur Friedman 
 Stephen Furlong 

David Harding 
 William Healy 
 Zhenxue Jing 

Robert Lavallee 
 Roger Mills 
 Michael Parrilla 

John Pekarsky 
 David Rudzinsky 
 Peter Soltani 

Thomas Umbel 
 Steve Williamson
#### Anna Makris, Respondent, v Westchester County et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[800 NYS2d 759]

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants *932Westchester County, Westchester County Medical Center and Samuel Kasoff appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered April 16, 2004, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to strike their answers pursuant to CPLR 3126, and (2) an order of the same court entered September 20, 2004, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order entered April 16, 2004, as granted that branch of the motion which was to strike the answers of the defendants Westchester County, Westchester County Medical Center and Samuel Kasoff is dismissed, as that portion of the order was superseded by the order entered September 20, 2004, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered September 20, 2004, is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof which, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination granting that branch of the motion which was to strike the answers of the defendants Westchester County, Westchester County Medical Center and Samuel Kasoff, and substituting therefor a provision, upon reargument, granting that branch of the motion only to the extent of directing that Kanterman & Taub, EC., the attorneys for those defendants, to pay the sum of $10,000 as a sanction to the plaintiff; as so modified, the order entered September 20, 2004, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, and the order entered April 16, 2004, is modified accordingly; and it is further,

Ordered that the sanction shall be paid within 60 days after service upon Kanterman & Taub, EC., of a copy of this decision and order; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the conduct complained of was willful and contumacious *(see e.g. Black v Little,*5 AD3d 520, 521 [2004]; *Robinson v Pediatric Assoc. of Irwin Ave.,*307 AD2d 1029, 1030 [2003]; *Gourdine v Phelps Mem. Hosp.,*40 AD2d 694 [1972]). Nevertheless, under the particular circumstances of this case, and as a matter of discretion, we find that a monetary sanction in the sum of $10,000, payable to the plaintiff by the appellants’ trial attorney, constitutes an appropriate sanction *(see Curdo v Hogan Coring & Sawing Corp.,*303 AD2d 357, 359 [2003]; *DeFoe v Bankers Trust Co.,*179 AD2d 737, 738 [1992]).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit *(see*
      *933
      *Kennedy v Children’s Hosp. of Buffalo,*303 AD2d 937, 937-938 [2003]; *Brothers v Bunkoff Gen. Contrs.,*296 AD2d 764, 765 [2002]; *see also Rupp-Elmasri v Elmasri,*8 AD3d 464, 465 [2004] ). Adams, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.
# CE2004078EN.01051901.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/519 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/519

---

(2004/C 78 E/0540)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3321/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   Malta's temporary landfills

Subject:

To comply with the EU Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC (1)), the government of Malta announced, on 8 July 2003, that two quarries for the dumping of domestic and organic waste are to be set up as temporary landfills, until an engineered landfill at Tal-Ghallis is built by 2005. The choice of the two identified quarries has raised serious objections, since they are only a few hundred metres away from the Unesco World Heritage Site Mnajdra and Hagar Qim Megalithic temples and this area has been earmarked as a Heritage Park for a long time.

1

Can the Commission confirm whether it has been informed by the Maltese government about the choice of the two temporary sites and whether it considers that this temporary solution complies with the (current and future) Member States' commitment to safeguard and enhance Europe's cultural heritage?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

(23 December 2003)

The Commission has not been informed by the Maltese governance about the planned landfills in Malta.

In the accession negotiations, Malta gave its commitment to meet the provisions of the Landfill Directive (2) from 1 May 2004. In the run-up to this date the Commission will be monitoring Malta's progress with the transposition and implementation of the Landfill Directive and the commitments given during negotiations.

2

Concerning the protection of nature and cultural patrimony in the area of the temporary landfills, the decision of where to locate the landfills remains with the national authorities but must meet the general requirements given in Annex I of the Directive.

Once Malta becomes a Member State then the Commission will ensure compliance with this Directive in the same way as it does for all other Member States.

---

(1)  OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste.

2

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard D. Pellor, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 637]

Kane, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schuyler County (Argetsinger, J.), rendered March 4, 2004, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of sodomy in the first degree and promoting an obscene sexual performance by a child.

As a result of his sexual contact with two girls under the age of 11 between December 2001 and March 2003, defendant was charged in two indictments with numerous sex-related crimes. He pleaded guilty to sodomy in the first degree and promoting *1223an obscene sexual performance by a child with respect to only one of the victims in satisfaction of both indictments, as well as a third indictment that charged him with sexual abuse in the first degree. Although no specific agreement was made with respect to the sentence, County Court agreed to concurrent sentences and to a determinate prison term of anywhere between five years and 20 years on the sodomy conviction, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant was ultimately sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 20 years for sodomy in the first degree and 2/s to 7 years for promoting an obscene sexual performance by a child. He now appeals.

Initially, we find no merit to defendant’s contention that he was deprived of due process by virtue of the prosecutor’s comments during sentencing regarding crimes for which he was not convicted. The record reveals that although the prosecutor attempted to refer to such matters, upon defense counsel’s objection County Court advised the prosecutor that they were irrelevant to the sentence to be imposed and would not be considered. Moreover, considering defendant’s criminal history and the disturbing nature of the crimes of which he was convicted, involving the victimization of an innocent child, we find no extraordinary circumstances or an abuse of discretion that would warrant a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice *(see People v Agan,*301 AD2d 968 [2003]; *People v Fox,*274 AD2d 665, 666 [2000]).

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Brandon Holmes WILDER.

No. COA 15-145.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Reversed.
EXHIBIT
4.2

     

    AudioCodes
Ltd.

     

    Amendment
to 2008 Equity Incentive Plan

    


    Effective
October 19, 2010, Section 3(a) of the AudioCodes Ltd. 2008 Equity Incentive Plan
(the "Plan") is
hereby amended to increase the aggregate maximum number of Ordinary Shares,
nominal value NIS 0.01 per share (the "Ordinary
Shares"), which may be issued under the Plan by 2,000,000 Ordinary
Shares, such that, subject to Section 16 of the Plan, the aggregate maximum
number of Ordinary Shares, which may be issued under the Plan following this
amendment shall be 4,009,122 Ordinary Shares.
STATE v. ROWLAND.

No. COA08-753.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Harnett (06CRS57619, 07CRS6932).

Case reported without published opinion. No error in part; Vacated in part.
STATE v. Jose LEYVA.

No. 131P07-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th day of January 2009 by Defendant for Petition for a Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of February 2009."
In the Matter of N.R.C., N.F.C., N.K.R.

No. COA15-291.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 18, 2015.

Matthew W. Jackson, for petitioner-appellee Beaufort County Department of Social Services.

Sydney Batch, for respondent-appellant mother.

**Opinion**

Appeal by respondent-mother from orders entered 4 February 2014 by Judge Darrell B. Cayton, Jr., and 17 October 2014 by Judge Christopher McLendon in Beaufort County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 July 2015. Beaufort County, Nos. 12 JA 34-35; 13 JA 13.

1

We adopt the pseudonyms used by the parties on appeal to protect the juveniles' identities.

2

Although Nathan and Nicole were born out of wedlock, Mr. W.'s paternity of Nicole was established by court order prior to the institution of these proceedings. Mr. W.'s paternity of Nathan was established by genetic testing in January 2013.

3

The record on appeal includes an incomplete version of this order. Although pages 2 and 4 of the order are missing, it appears otherwise identical to the order included in the supplement to the record filed by BCDSS.

4

Effective 1 October 2013, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B-907was repealed and replaced by current statute N.C. Gen.Stat. § 906.1.2013 N.C. Sess. Laws 129 §§ 25-26, 41. We apply the statute in existence in August 2013.

5

The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children. *See*N . C. Gen.Stat. § 7B-3800 (2013).

6

BCDSS filed a supplement to the record on appeal pursuant to N.C. R.App. P. 9(b)(5)(2015), which includes its ICPC request, dated 16 September 2013, seeking a home study of Ms. Bryant from the Virginia Department of Social Services ("Virginia DSS"). Also included is an "Interstate Placement Transmittal" from Virginia DSS denying the ICPC request based on Ms. Bryant's notice to Virginia DSS on 11 November 2013 that she no longer wished to be considered as a placement option. Respondent has moved to strike these documents, inasmuch as they did not exist at the time of the 23 August 2013 permanency planning hearing and were not subsequently introduced into evidence in the trial court. We grant Respondent's motion and disregard these documents for purposes of our review.
MELTON-RIDDLE FUNERAL HOME, INC. v. NORTH CAROLINA BD. OF FUNERAL SERVICE.

No. COA08-205.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 16, 2008.

Certification Date October 6, 2008.

Appeal from Wake (07CVS1888).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54432-54433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18203]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i> 10189]


Louisiana Disaster <greek-i> LA-00003

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-
1601-DR), dated 08/23/2005.
    Incident: Tropical Storm Cindy.
    Incident Period: 07/05/2005 through 07/06/2005.
    Effective Date: 08/23/2005.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/24/2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Disaster Area Office 3, 14925 Kingsport Road Fort 
Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 
6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 08/23/2005, applications 
for Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of 
a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the 
address listed above or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

[[Page 54433]]

Primary Parishes:
Jefferson, Lafourche, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles.
    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit             4.750
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 
<greek-i>10189.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Cheri L. Cannon,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 05-18203 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 Orthodontic Centers of America, Inc.
Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), of Orthodontic Centers of America, Inc. (the
Company), I, David E. Verret, Senior Vice President of Finance and 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, 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. May 20, 2004
    /s/  David E. VerretDavid E. VerretSenior Vice President of Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
# Decision (EU) 2015/1195 of the European Central BankShow full title

Decision (EU) 2015/1195 of the European Central Bank of 2 July 2015 amending Decision (EU) 2015/298 on the interim distribution            of the income of the European Central Bank (ECB/2015/25)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Decision (EU) 2015/1195 of the European Central Bank

# of 2 July 2015

# amending Decision (EU) 2015/298 on the interim distribution of the income of the European Central Bank (ECB/2015/25)

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article                           33 thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Decision (EU) 2015/774 of the European Central Bank (ECB/2015/10)(1) establishes a secondary markets public sector asset purchase programme (hereinafter the ‘PSPP’). Provision needs to be made                              for the interim distribution of the ECB's income from the PSPP in Decision (EU) 2015/298 of the European Central Bank (ECB/2014/57)(2).

(2)Therefore, Decision (EU) 2015/298 (ECB/2014/57) should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

## Article 1U.K.Amendment

Point (d) of Article 1 of Decision (EU) 2015/298 (ECB/2014/57) is replaced by the following:

### ‘(d)“ECB's income arising from securities” means the net income arising from purchases by the ECB of securities: (i) under the                           SMP in accordance with Decision ECB/2010/5; (ii) under the CBPP3 in accordance with Decision ECB/2014/40; (iii) under the                           ABSPP in accordance with Decision ECB/2014/45; and (iv) under the secondary markets public sector asset purchase programme                           (PSPP) in accordance with Decision (EU) 2015/774 of the European Central Bank (ECB/2015/10)(3).’.

## Article 2U.K.Entry into force

This Decision shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 2 July 2015.

*The President of the ECB*                            

Mario Draghi                            

1

Decision (EU) 2015/774 of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2015 on a secondary markets public sector asset purchase programme                              (ECB/2015/10) (OJ L 121, 14.5.2015, p. 20).                           

2

Decision (EU) 2015/298 of the European Central Bank of 15 December 2014 on the interim distribution of the income of the European                              Central Bank (ECB/2014/57) (OJ L 53, 25.2.2015, p. 24).                           

3

Decision (EU) 2015/774 of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2015 on a secondary markets public sector asset purchase programme                              (ECB/2015/10) (OJ L 121, 14.5.2015, p. 20).’.
#### Manya Berenholz et al., Respondents, v Carlos Lopez et al., Appellants.

[802 NYS2d 697]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order *978of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated November 4, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The injured plaintiff tripped over wooden planking which had been placed over the area between the curb abutting the roadway and the sidewalk abutting the defendants’ property. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We affirm.

The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]; *Portaro v Tillis Inv. Co.,*304 AD2d 635 [2003]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Ritter and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.7

Consent of Chartered Accountants

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-126038, 333-126039, 333-126040, 333-151243,
333-151251, 333-174376, 333-181116 and 333-188805 on Form S-8 and to the use of our reports dated February 18, 2015 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Goldcorp Inc. and the effectiveness of Goldcorp Inc.s internal
control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of Goldcorp Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2014.



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/ Deloitte LLP                       
|Chartered Accountants
Vancouver, Canada
|March 17, 2015