alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[662 NE2d 254, 638 NYS2d 936]

#### In the Matter of Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, et al., Respondents, v Brookhaven-Comsewogue Union Free School District, Appellant.

Argued November 29,1995;

decided December 21, 1995

*869APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Cahn Wishod & Lamb, L. L. P.,*Melville *(Eugene L. Wishod*and *Frederick Eisenbud*of counsel), for appellant.

*Vitale, Levitt & McCarthy, P. C.,*Huntington *(Howard E. Gilbert*of counsel), for Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., and another, respondents.

*870*Robert J. Cimino, County Attorney*of Suffolk County, Hauppauge *(Jeltje deJong*of counsel), for Suffolk County Department of Civil Service, respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Having been appointed from the outset to a permanent position in the classified civil service, petitioner was entitled to be credited with her part-time service for purposes of determining her seniority under Civil Service Law § 80 (1). Contrary to respondent’s argument, an appointment may be "permanent” within the meaning of Civil Service Law § 80 (1) and (2) even if the position calls for only part-time work.

We also reject respondent’s contention that petitioner’s position was seasonal or temporary because she worked only during the 10-month school year for the six years before she was laid off. The only statutory provision for temporary appointment to classified positions is Civil Service Law § 64, and there is no claim that petitioner’s appointment fits within the terms of that statute. Indeed, section 64 forbids successive appointments to the same position, suggesting that the six years of temporary appointments respondent claims occurred would have been illegal.

Finally, because she was improperly laid off, petitioner is entitled to an award of back pay without any deduction for amounts she may have earned before she was restored to her position (Civil Service Law § 77). We decline to adopt respondent’s contention that Civil Service Law § 77 applies only to removals resulting from title B disciplinary hearings, since nothing in the statute’s language suggests such a limitation. Indeed, the statute applies, by its terms, to employees who are removed "in violation of the provisions of *this chapter”*(emphasis added) and is, in fact, the only provision for awarding relief to a civil service employee who is determined to be entitled to reinstatement. Moreover, respondent’s restrictive interpretation of section 77 would create the unacceptable anomaly that a wholly innocent discharged employee would receive less relief than those discharged for good cause or misconduct. Thus, the statute, including its provision for full reimbursement without offset, was properly applied to petitioner’s case.

*871Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of MidSouth Bancorp, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 (the
Report), I, C.R. Cloutier, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company. /s/ C. R. Cloutier  
 Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of MidSouth Bancorp, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 (the
Report), I, Karen L. Hail, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company. /s/ Karen L. Hail  
 29
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of John H. Smith, as Executor, etc., of John T. Smith, Deceased.

Decree affirmed, with costs to respondent, to be paid put of the estate.—

Dykman, J.:

This proceeding was instituted in the Surrogate’s Court of the county of Rockland, by John H. Smith, one of the executors of the estate of John T. Smith, deceased, for ah accounting of his proceedings as such executor, based upon a petition filed in the Surrogate’s Court on the 26th day of June, 1891, before George ‘W. Wirant, then surrogate of Rockland county. All the parties interested were duly cited. Testimony was introduced and taken before Surrogate Wirant, and before anything further was done he became ill, and William McCauley, district attorney of Rockland county, became acting surrogate, and a few days before .the close of his office as district attorney, he signed a decree in this proceeding. A. S. Tompkins, who had been counsel for the executor, then became surrogate, and a motion was made before him to set aside or resettle the decree of District Attorney McCauley, on the ground that it did not conform to tho facts as disclosed by the testimony. That motion was certified to Prank Comesky, then district attorney of Rockland county, hy reason of the disability of TompLins on account of his connection with the case as counsel. Comesky vacated the previous decree and signed a decree in conformity to the findings previously made by him, and from that decree the present appeal was taken. The last decree allows the executor several payments which he had made which were disallowed by the first decree. In other respects the two decrees are practically the same. The disbursements allowed to the executor were all actually made, and there is no sufficient reason why they should not be allowed. The largest claim is the sum paid to the widow for her right of dower. Both the executors charge themselves with the whole sum received for the real property sold, and as they were obliged to pay the widow, who had a right of dower in the premises, it follows that the sum so paid to her must be deducted from the amount they received. The power to open and modify the first decree is expressly conferred by subdivision 6 of section 2481 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree should be affirmed, with costs to the respondents, to be paid from the estate.

Brown, P. J., and Pratt, J., concurred.
EXHIBIT C

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4235-3 Filed: 10/16/19 Entered: 10/16/19 15:39:12 Page 1

of 6
76*5HSRUWLQJ:RUOGZLGH

Page 1

1 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

4

5 In re: )

 )

6 )

PG&E CORPORATION, )

7 ) Bankruptcy Case

 )

8 -and- ) No. 19-30088(DM)

 )

9 )

PACIFIC GAS and ELECTRIC )

10 COMPANY, )

 )

11 Debtors. )

 )

12

13

14

15

16 RULE 30(b)(6) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION of BAUPOST

17 BY: JOSHUA GREENHILL

18 _______________________________

19 TAKEN ON

20

 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2019

21

22

23

 REPORTED BY:

24 JESSIE WAACK, RDR, CRR, CCRR, CCR, NYACR, NYRCR

 JOB NO.: 170325

25

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4235-3 Filed: 10/16/19 Entered: 10/16/19 15:39:12 Page 2

of 6
76*5HSRUWLQJ:RUOGZLGH

Page 23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 Q. My only question about the

15 document, sir, is if you look at the

16 page numbers on the bottom of the page,

17 page 4, you will see Baupost identified

18 on that page as well as a statement of

19 Baupost's holdings of both subrogation

20 claims and common stock.

21 Do you see that?

22 A. I do.

23 Q. My only question to you, sir,

24 is if, to your knowledge, this statement

25 which was filed with the Court

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4235-3 Filed: 10/16/19 Entered: 10/16/19 15:39:12 Page 3

of 6
76*5HSRUWLQJ:RUOGZLGH

Page 24

1 accurately represents Baupost's

2 holdings?

3 MR. SEILER: At the time it

4 was filed?

5 MR. QURESHI: At the time it

6 was filed.

7 MR. SEILER: You can answer.

8 THE WITNESS: At the time it

9 was filed, yes.

10 BY MR. QURESHI:

11 Q. Have those holdings changed

12 since the time it was filed?

13 MR. SEILER: You can answer.

14 THE WITNESS: Our shares of

15 PG&E Corporation common stock have

16 not changed. $850,000 in other

17 unsecured wildfire related claims

18 have not changed. Our wildfire

19 relates subrogation claims have

20 changed.

21 BY MR. QURESHI:

22 Q. How has that changed?

23 A. It's increased.

24 Q. To what amount?

25 A. Approximately --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4235-3 Filed: 10/16/19 Entered: 10/16/19 15:39:12 Page 4

of 6
76*5HSRUWLQJ:RUOGZLGH

Page 25

1 MR. SEILER: Do you know what

2 amount would be for this purpose

3 or --

4 THE WITNESS: Yeah.

5 MR. SEILER: How would -- how

6 would you --

7 THE WITNESS: Yeah.

8 MR. SEILER: Because this --

9 if you look at Footnote 1, it

10 defines what that includes.

11 MR. QURESHI: Apples to

12 apples with what's in the 2019.

13 MR. SEILER: Okay.

14 THE WITNESS: Let me read

15 Footnote 9, please.

16 BY MR. QURESHI:

17 Q. Sure.

18 MR. SEILER: You also need to

19 read -- I think --

20 THE WITNESS: I see it.

21 MR. SEILER: Of the -- the

22 little Footnote 1.

23 THE WITNESS: Yeah, my

24 best -- this is my best guess that

25 number again would be

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4235-3 Filed: 10/16/19 Entered: 10/16/19 15:39:12 Page 5

of 6
76*5HSRUWLQJ:RUOGZLGH

Page 26

1 approximately 6 billion.

2

3 

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 

12 

13

14

15

16 

17 

18

19

20 

21

22 

23

24

25

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4235-3 Filed: 10/16/19 Entered: 10/16/19 15:39:12 Page 6

of 6
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5195 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 31, 2014 

Received 

AN ACT 

To provide additional visas for the Afghan Special Immigrant 

Visa Program, and for other purposes. 

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


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5195 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AFGHAN SPECIAL IMMIGRANT 

2 PROGRAM. 

3 Section 602(b)(3) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act 

4 of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is amended by adding at 

5 the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(E) SPECIAL RULE FOR END OF CAL7 ENDAR YEAR 2014.— 

8 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—During the period 

9 beginning on the date of the enactment of 

10 this subparagraph and ending on Decem11 ber 31, 2014, an additional 1,000 principal 

12 aliens may be provided special immigrant 

13 status under this section. For purposes of 

14 status provided under this subparagraph— 

15 ‘‘(I) the period during which an 

16 alien must have been employed in ac17 cordance with paragraph (2)(A)(ii) 

18 must terminate on or before Decem19 ber 31, 2014; 

20 ‘‘(II) the principal alien seeking 

21 special immigrant status under this 

22 subparagraph shall apply to the Chief 

23 of Mission in accordance with para24 graph (2)(D) not later than December 

25 31, 2014; and 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 5195 RDS 

1 ‘‘(III) the authority to provide 

2 such status shall terminate on Decem3 ber 31, 2014. 

4 ‘‘(ii) CONSTRUCTION.—Clause (i) 

5 shall not be construed to affect the author6 ity, numerical limitations, or terms for pro7 vision of status, under subparagraph 

8 (D).’’. 

9 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY FEE INCREASE FOR CERTAIN CON10 SULAR SERVICES. 

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi12 sion of law, the Secretary of State, not later than January 

13 1, 2015, shall increase the fee or surcharge authorized 

14 under section 140(a) of the Foreign Relations Authoriza15 tion Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103– 

16 236; 8 U.S.C. 1351 note) by $1.00 for processing ma17 chine-readable nonimmigrant visas and machine-readable 

18 combined border crossing identification cards and non19 immigrant visas. 

20 (b) DEPOSIT OF AMOUNTS.—Notwithstanding sec21 tion 140(a)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 

22 Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103–236; 8 

23 U.S.C. 1351 note), the additional amount collected pursu24 ant the fee increase authorized under subsection (a) shall 

25 be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury. 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 5195 RDS 

1 (c) SUNSET PROVISION.—The fee increase authorized 

2 under subsection (a) shall terminate on the date that is 

3 5.5 years after the first date on which such increased fee 

4 is collected. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Julia E. Blackman, Respondent, v. Eliza Wheeler, Appellant.

Orders affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
#### Louis Jenkins et al. v. Wolf Cohn.

*Deed—Reformation of.*

This court declines to interfere with a decree for the complainant in a hill filed for the reformation of a deed.

[Opinion filed October 23, 1890.]

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Egbert Jamieson, Judge, presiding.

Mr. L. S. Hodges, for appellants.

Mr. Henry C. Noyes, for appellee.

Waterman, J.

Appellee filed in the court below his bill asking for the reformation of a deed. The testimony prodnced upon the hearing was very conflicting; the witnesses *257appeared and were examined in open court, and the decision of the case depended entirely upon the view which should be taken of the evidence.

We see no sufficient reason for interfering with: the conclusion reached by the chancellor. His opportunity for ascertaining the truth, and for arriving at a correct determination, was better than ours, and although we might not think as did he concerning what the real facts of the case were, we see nó such preponderance of evidence as will warrant us in doing otherwise than affirming the decree of the Superior Court. '

*Decree affirmed.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Charles Mason, Respondent.

Judgment reversed upon the exceptions and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. *Held,*that the action was properly brought. (See Laws of 1889, chap. 577.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      18,995,359
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               173,804
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 47,269,606
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      24,081,679
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        24,295,000
<LOANS>                                    211,743,811
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,707,988
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             311,889,872
<DEPOSITS>                                 267,967,176
<SHORT-TERM>                                 3,700,160
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,890,146
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       322,493
<OTHER-SE>                                  37,009,897
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             311,889,872
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             14,772,013
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            3,154,229
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                43,610
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            17,969,852
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           6,610,585
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,005,294
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       10,964,558
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  247,500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              8,390,630
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,805,463
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   3,168,694
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,168,694
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.99
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.36
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,981,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                    27,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,607,579
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  207,376
<RECOVERIES>                                    60,284
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,707,988
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,707,988
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5202 

To require notification when personally identifying information is disclosed 

by a Government agency, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 24, 2014 

Mr. STOCKMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To require notification when personally identifying information is disclosed by a Government agency, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Personal Information 

5 Notification Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NOTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL IN7 FORMATION BY AGENCIES. 

8 (a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that when per9 sonally identifying information is obtained through an 

10 agency by an entity outside of the Government without 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5202 IH

1 the knowledge of the individual it pertains to, it may con2 stitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and 

3 such individual should be notified that the information was 

4 accessed in order to be afforded the opportunity to re5 spond. 

6 (b) OMB POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.—Not later 

7 than the first October 1 after the date of the enactment 

8 of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and 

9 Budget shall establish and oversee policies and procedures 

10 that require an agency to send a written notification to 

11 any individual whose personally identifying information is 

12 accessed by a private entity, not later than 30 calendar 

13 days after the information was accessed. Such letter shall 

14 identify the information accessed and the name of the en15 tity who accessed the information. 

16 (c) CONTACT INFORMATION.—The Director of the 

17 Office of Management and Budget— 

18 (1) may obtain the contact information used to 

19 notify an individual by letter described in subsection 

20 (b) from sources including a driver’s license and 

21 voter registration; and 

22 (2) may not obtain such contact information 

23 from the Internal Revenue Service or the National 

24 Security Agency. 

25 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5202 IH

1 (1) AGENCY.—The term ‘‘agency’’ has the 

2 meaning given that term in section 551 of title 5, 

3 United States Code. 

4 (2) PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMA5 TION.—The term ‘‘personally identifying informa6 tion’’ means any information about an individual 

7 maintained by an agency that is not already public 

8 information, including, without limitation, education, 

9 financial transactions, medical history, and criminal 

10 or employment history, and information that can be 

11 used to distinguish or trace the identity of an indi12 vidual, such as a social security number, date and 

13 place of birth, mother’s maiden name, and biometric 

14 records. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

I, Harold Brown, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of New England Realty Associates LimitedPartnership for the period ended September 30, 2004;

 

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

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)     Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)    Evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and presented in this report ourconclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)     Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent function):

 

a)     All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls whichare reasonable likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial; and

 

b)    Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 

 
|                       | /s/  HAROLD BROWN         |   |
|----------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------|
|                       | Principal Financial Officer         |
| Date: August 15, 2005 | (Treasurer and Director of the      |
|                       | Partnership’s General Partner, |
|                       | NewReal, Inc.)                 |

 

----
NOTE: This order is nonprecedentiaL 

Wniteb ~tate5 <!Court of ~peaI5 

for tbe jf eberaI <!Circuit 

WHITSERVE, LLC, 

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant" 

Cross Appellant, 

AND 

WESLEY W. WHITMYER, JR., 

Third Party DefendantCross Appellant, 

v. 

COMPUTER PACKAGES, INC., 

Defendant-/ Counterclaim PlaintiffAppellant. 

2011-1206, -1261 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

District of Connecticut in case no. 06-CV-1935, Judge 

Alfred V. Covello. 

ON MOTION 

ORDER 
WHITSERVE v. COMPUTER PACKAGES 2 

Upon consideration of Computer Packages, Inc.'s unopposed motion to file a corrected, non-confidential brief, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted. 

JJL 21 2011 

Date 

cc: Gene S. Winter, Esq. 

John A. Krause, Esq. 

s20 

FOR THE COURT 

/s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly 

Clerk 

FILED 

'.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

JUL 272011 

JAN HORBAlY 

CLERK