alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[663 NE2d 905, 640 NYS2d 864]

#### Ruth MacLeod, Respondent, v Pete’s Tavern, Inc., Doing Business as Pete’s Tavern, et al., Appellants, and Lillian Troy et al., Respondents.

Decided January 16, 1996

*913APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Cyperstein & Gerstner,*New York City *(Fredda Siegel*and *Barbara M. Berk*of counsel), for appellants.

*Wagner, Davis & Gold, P. C.,*New York City *(Bonnie Reid Berkow*of counsel), for Ruth MacLeod, respondent.

*Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel*of New York City *(Ellen B. Fishman*of counsel), for City of New York, respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, defendant Pete’s Tavern’s motion for summary judgment granted, and the complaint and all cross claims against Pete’s Tavern dismissed. The certified question should be answered in the negative.

In May 1991, plaintiff Ruth MacLeod sustained injuries when she slipped and fell on the sidewalk in front of the restaurant and bar known as Pete’s Tavern. Pete’s Tavern has an outdoor cafe adjacent to the building which extends onto the sidewalk for approximately four to five feet and is bordered by a wrought iron guardrail located on the sidewalk.

On the day in question, plaintiff saw an unidentified waiter and group of people standing on the sidewalk outside the guardrail surrounding the outdoor cafe. Plaintiff stated that in order to pass it was necessary to walk around the waiter and people standing at the guardrail into the middle of the sidewalk, where she tripped and fell in a hole or depression in the sidewalk. She claimed not to have noticed the hole prior to falling because she was walking around the crowd gathered at the guardrail.

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages from, among others, the lessee of the abutting property, Pete’s Tavern, for personal injuries allegedly sustained from the fall. *914Pete’s Tavern moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it. Supreme Court denied the motion and the Appellate Division, with one Justice dissenting, affirmed. We now reverse.

The question presented is whether the special use of the sidewalk represented by the outdoor cafe extended beyond the guardrail to include the public sidewalk area in which plaintiff fell. Neither the existence of the crowd nor the fact that one of defendant’s employees was seen on the sidewalk outside the rail creates a triable issue of fact in this respect.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, etc.
#### STATE v. ELSIE TAYLOR SIMMS and STATE-WIDE BAIL, INC.

(Filed 22 September, 1954.)

Arrest and Bail § 8—

The subsequent arrest of defendant does not *ipso facto*discharge the original forfeiture of bail, but entitles the surety to move that the judgment absolute against it be modified.

*601Appeal by the surety on defendant’s appearance bond from *Morris, J.,*May Term 1954, Wilsost.

Affirmed.

Criminal indictment, heard on motion to vacate or modify judgment absolute entered against the surety on defendant’s appearance bond.

A true bill of indictment charging the commission of a felony was returned against the defendant at the December 1953 Term of the Superior Court of Wilson County. She was apprehended and executed bond for her appearance at the February 1954 Term of court with State-Wide Bail, Inc. as surety. At said term judgment *nisi*was entered. *Scire facias*returnable on the first day of the May Term was served on the surety. Judgment absolute was entered 3 May 1954. The surety appeared and moved to vacate said judgment. The motion was denied and said surety appealed.

*Charles L. Abernethy, Jr., for appellant.*

*Luke Lamb for appellee.*

Pee Cubiam.

The facts in this case are substantially on all fours with the facts in *S. v. Dew, ante,*595, except that the appellant alleges in its proposed amendment to its answer that this defendant has been apprehended and was returned to the Wilson County jail on 16 April 1954. What is said in the opinion in that ease is controlling here.

While the subsequent arrest of the defendant does not, *ipso facto,*discharge the original forfeiture, *Tar Heel Bond Co. v. Krider,*218 N.C. 361, 11 S.E. 2d 291; *S. v. Brown,*218 N.C. 368, 11 S.E. 2d 294, the door is still open to the defendant to appeal to the court to modify the judgment absolute for the reason the defendant has been apprehended and surrendered to the Wilson County authorities.

The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.
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 annual report of China Multimedia, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the "Report"), I, Wilson Cheung, President and Chairman 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  /s/Wilson CheungWilson Cheung, President and Chairman December 31, 2007
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert Mintak, hereby 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Dussault Apparel Inc.
      for the year ended October 31, 2008 (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 Dussault Apparel Inc.                                                                

Dated: March 17, 2009



| | /s/
      Robert Mintak                                    
| | -----------------------------------------------------------
| | Robert Mintak                                              
| | Chief Financial Officer                                    
| | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
      Accounting
| | Officer)                                                   
| | Dussault Apparel Inc.                                      



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Dussault Apparel
Inc. and will be retained by Dussault Apparel Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### Erastus S. Penny, Appellant, v. The Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg Railroad Company, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Boardman, J.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SALLY J. ELKINGTON - SBN 142619 

JAMES A. SHEPHERD - SBN 264400

ELKINGTON SHEPHERD LLP 

Historic Tribune Tower 

409 - 13th Street, 10th Floor, 

Oakland, CA 94612

tel (510) 465-0404 

fax (510) 465-0202

email: jim@elkshep.com

Attorneys for W. BRADLEY ELECTRIC, INC.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re 

PG&E CORPORATION, INC,

Debtor in Possession. __________________________________

In re 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC

COMPANY,

Debtor in Possession. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case. No. 19-30088 DM

Chapter 11

Case. No. 19-30089 DM

Chapter 11

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND

REQUEST FOR NOTICE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Elkington Shepherd LLP appears as counsel in the 

above-captioned cases on behalf of W. Bradley Electric, Inc., a creditor therein (“WBE”). WBE

requests under Rules 2002, 3017 and 9007 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and

other applicable law that an entry be made on the court matrix and that all notices and papers

filed and/or served in these cases be served upon:

Sally J. Elkington

James A. Shepherd 

ELKINGTON SHEPHERD LLP 

409 - 13th Street, 10th Floor 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Telephone (510) 465-0404

Facsimle (510) 465-0202 

sally@elkshep.com

jim@elkshep.com.

This notice of appearance and request for notice is without prejudice to: (1) WJB’s

rights, remedies, claims, actions, defenses, setoffs or recoupments, in law or in equity, against

the above-captioned debtors and any other entities either in this case or in any other action, all

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 42 Filed: 01/29/19 Entered: 01/29/19 09:36:00 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of which rights, remedies, claims, actions, defenses, setoffs and recoupments WJB expressly

reserves; and (2) shall not be construed to submit WJB to the jurisdiction of this Court in any

matter.

DATED: January 29, 2019 ELKINGTON SHEPHERD LLP 

By: /s/ James A. Shepherd 

 Attorneys for W. BRADLEY 

 ELECTRIC, INC., Creditor 

- 2 -

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 42 Filed: 01/29/19 Entered: 01/29/19 09:36:00 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 35.1

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

                        RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC

                RASC SERIES 2007-KS1 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC,
as servicer (the  "Servicer")  pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement,
dated as of January 1, 2007 (as  amended  from time to time,  the  "Agreement"),
among  Residential  Asset  Securities  Corporation,  as  depositor,  Residential
Funding Company, LLC, as master servicer, and U.S. Bank National Association, as
trustee, does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  covered  by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge,
based on such review,  the Servicer has fulfilled all of its  obligations  under
the Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 24th
day of March 2008.


By:   /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      Name:   Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:  Managing Director
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SCOTT H. MCNUTT (CSBN 104696) 

324 Warren Road 

San Mateo, California 94402 

Telephone: (415) 760-5601 

Email: shm@ml-sf.com 

Proposed Attorney for Fee Examiner 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re 

PG&E CORPORATION, 

- and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

Debtors. 

☐ Affects PG&E Corporation 

☐ Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

☒ Affects both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

 Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

Chapter 11 

DECLARATION OF BRUCE A. 

MARKELL IN SUPPORT OF 

APPLICATION FOR ORDER 

AUTHORIZING EMPLOYMENT OF 

SCOTT H. MCNUTT AS COUNSEL TO 

FEE EXAMINER 

Judge: Hon. Dennis Montali 

I, Bruce A. Markell, hereby declare as follows: 

1. By order entered May 29, 2019 [Docket No. 2267] (the “Fee Examiner Order”), 

this court appointed me as the Fee Examiner in these jointly administered cases. In such capacity, 

and except as otherwise indicated herein I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below, 

and if called as a witness I could and would competently testify to the matters set forth in this 

declaration. 

2. The Fee Examiner Order authorizes me to retain counsel to aid in the performance 

and discharge of my duties. Paragraph 12 of the Fee Examiner Order states that: “The Fee 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2560 Filed: 06/17/19 Entered: 06/17/19 12:19:16 Page 1 of

2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 DECL. OF B. MARKELL ISO APPLICATION TO 

EMPLOY SCOTT H. MCNUTT 

Examiner may retain attorneys and other professionals, assistants, or consultants to the extent he 

deems it necessary to discharge his duties. The Fee Examiner's retention of professionals shall be 

subject to Court approval under standards equivalent to 11 U.S.C. § 327.” 

Fee Examiner Order, ¶ 12. 

3. I have decided that I need local counsel to fully discharge my obligations under the 

Fee Examiner Order. To assist me, I have chosen Scott H. McNutt. 

4. I have read Mr. McNutt’s APPLICATION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EMPLOYMENT 

OF SCOTT H. MCNUTT AS COUNSEL TO FEE EXAMINER (“Application”), and his declaration in 

support thereof. 

5. I have known Mr. McNutt for more than 30 years. I know his strengths; he knows 

my weaknesses. I fully support his Application. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the 

State of California that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

Executed this 17th day of June, 2019, at Chicago, Illinois. 

/s/ Bruce A. Markell

 Bruce A. Markell 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2560 Filed: 06/17/19 Entered: 06/17/19 12:19:16 Page 2 of

2
#### Edward D. C. McKay, Appellant, v. Donald McKay and Others, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.—

Parker, J.:

An examination of the evidence, presented by the record, leads us to concur in the decision of the trial court that the defendants have not in their possession any bonds belonging to the plaintiff, nor the proceeds of any such bonds for which they have not accounted to the plaintiff. The complaint alleges the deposit by the plaintiff with the defendants in September, 1869, of certain bonds of the face value of $45,000 and their sale by the defendants during the months of October and December following, for a sum exceeding $55,000. During the years 1869,1870 and 1871 the defendants purchased and sold stock for the account of the plaintiff and rendered to him an account of such transactions onthe27thof October, 1871, by which there appeared to be due to defendants the sum of $15,800.74, which sum the plaintiff paid by his check, at the same time receiving a transfer of the stocks then held by the defendants for his account. After-wards, the plaintiff complained of certain charges in the account for interest and commissions, which led to a further settlement, by which the defendants agreed to, and did pay to the plaintiff the sum of $1,017, for which he gave a receipt reading as follows:

> “New York, Sept. 12,1872.

> “Received of Vermilye & Co. their check to my order for sixteen hundred and seventeen dollars ($1,617), in full of all claim, against said Vermilye & Co.

> “ *Witness:*“ E. D. C. McKAY*

> “ Geo. C. Lyman,

> “Donald McKay.’’

From the time of the first settlement in 1871 r to the year 1891, no claim was made against the defendants on account of these bonds. In the meantime, the head of defendants’ firm died, and their books covering .this period were destroyed. The facts to which we have referred, together with the presumption of payment, raised by the lapse of twenty years, between the date of the first settlement, and the demand for a return of the bonds (Bean v. Tonnele, 94 N. Y. 381), justify the finding-of the court. The discussion of the facts at, Special Term makes it unnecessary to further refer to them on this review. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Van Brunt, P. J., and Follett, J., concurred.
Notice Recipients

District/Off: 0971−3 User: admin Date Created: 5/11/2023

Case: 19−30088 Form ID: TRANSC Total: 3

Recipients of Notice of Electronic Filing:

aty Lawrence A. Jacobson laj@cohenandjacobson.com

aty Thomas B. Rupp trupp@kbkllp.com

TOTAL: 2

Recipients submitted to the Claims Agent (Kroll Restructuring Administration, LLC):

Steven A. Lamb Rovens Lamb LLP 2601 Airport Dr., Suite 370 Torrance, CA 90505

TOTAL: 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13722-3 Filed: 05/11/23 Entered: 05/11/23 04:50:01 Page 1

of 1
Exhibit 32.1




SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION




The undersigned officers of Glowpoint, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1)           The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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: August 8, 2011




/s/ Joseph Laezza


Joseph Laezza


Chief Executive Officer





/s/ John R. McGovern


John R. McGovern


Chief Financial Officer
Signed and Filed: February 13, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

February 13, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 432 Filed: 02/13/19 Entered: 02/13/19 14:34:08 Page 1 of 2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 432 Filed: 02/13/19 Entered: 02/13/19 14:34:08 Page 2 of 2
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**
I, Robert C. Salipante, Principal Executive Officer of Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.) (the "Company"), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2003, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
* /s/ Robert C. Salipante           ____________

Robert C. Salipante

President

August 14, 2003

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 ("Section 906"), and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") or otherwise subject to liability under that section.  This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act except to the extent that this certification is expressly incorporated by reference into any such filing.
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.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information from the Balance
Sheet, and Statement of Income, and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997

<CASH>                                          9,352
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             49
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                2,486
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     6,911
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         16,819
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           16,824
<LOANS>                                       191,942
<ALLOWANCE>                                     2,169
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                224,295
<DEPOSITS>                                    207,550
<SHORT-TERM>                                        0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               777
<LONG-TERM>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        9,754
<OTHER-SE>                                      6,214
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                224,295
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 8,987
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 671
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   68
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                9,726
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              4,371
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              4,371
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           5,355
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     240
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 3,210
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 2,603
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      2,603
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,547
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .95
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   9.37
<LOANS-NON>                                       117
<LOANS-PAST>                                    1,418
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 1,535
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                2,042
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     182
<RECOVERIES>                                       69
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               2,169
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            2,169
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           424
        


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 22, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 22, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22I0027. BRAD E. LADNER et al. v. KENNETH WAYNE MARTIN et al. . Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2019CV330739
#### Wilbur B. Wood and Worthington V. Wood, Respondents, v. Charles C. Wise and James M. Goss, Appellants.

Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to the defendants to plead over upon payment of

costs. No opinion.

Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr,- Woodward and Rich, JJ., concurred.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Louis Mendelowitz, Respondent.

Judgnientof the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event,' on the ground' that the judgment is clearly against the weight of evidence.

Jenks, P. J., Hirschberg, Burr, Thomas and Carr, JJ., concurred.