alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Joseph Mastropolo et al., Appellants, v New York City, Defendant, and New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated October 14, 1988, which denied their motion for leave to renew that branch of their prior motion which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e against the New York City Housing Authority, which was denied by order of the same court (Hirsch, J.), dated July 28,1983.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

That branch of the plaintiffs’ original motion which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e against the New York City Housing Authority (hereinafter NYCHA) was made in April 1983 one month after commencement of the action and just before expiration of the one year and 90-day period beyond which the Supreme Court would have been without discretion to grant the relief sought (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; *Pierson v City of New York,*56 NY2d 950). The Supreme Court denied that branch of the motion on the ground that the NYCHA did not have actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim. The plaintiffs took no appeal from that order, nor did they appeal from an order issued 3 *Vz*years later granting the defendant NYCHA’s motion for summary judgment to the extent of dismissing the complaint as against it. It was not until August 1988 that the plaintiffs made the present motion for leave to renew, premised primarily on 1982 medical records demonstrating the extent of the injuries the plaintiff Joseph Mastropolo sustained.

The plaintiffs, who do not adequately explain their failure to come forth with the records on which they now rely when they first made application for leave to file a late notice of claim *(see, Foley v Roche,*68 AD2d 558, 568), have, in any event, failed to demonstrate that newly discovered proof existe demonstrating that the defendant NYCHA had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim or that it otherwise would not be prejudiced in defending against their belated claim *(cf., Zarrello v City of New York,*61 NY2d 628). Thus, leave to renew was properly denied. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     BD
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BEDFORD
HOLDINGS, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                              11,776
<RECEIVABLES>                                       37,010
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                      0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                    0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                                      0
<PP&E>                                              29,130
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     141,797
<SHORT-TERM>                                             0
<PAYABLES>                                           7,113
<REPOS-SOLD>                                             0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                      0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            27,243
<OTHER-SE>                                        (850,346)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       141,797
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                 (154,401)
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                                   167
<COMMISSIONS>                                          314
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                            0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 124,750
<COMPENSATION>                                      16,878
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (502,397)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        (502,397)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (502,397)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.02)



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

GT Equipment Technologies, Inc.

v. Civil No. 05-cv-229-JM

Nu Vacuum Systems, Inc.

O R D E R

 Defendant has defaulted. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment

and I find and award the following damages based upon the

evidence presented at the damages hearing: 

$32,340.00 The remainder of the advance payment after

deducting the cost of the two (2) delivered

chambers ($124,000.00 minus $91,660.00). 

$ 3,000.00 The cost to rework the defective top chamber

flange on the first chamber. Exhibit 2. 

$13,989.00 The cost to remove and replace incorrectly

positioned electrode ports on the second

chamber. Exhibit 3. 

$13,989.00 The anticipated cost to remove and replace

the electrode ports on the first chamber. 

$ 1,000.00 Transportation costs for work on both

chambers. 

$ 1,200.00 Cost incurred for additional inspection of

the chambers. 

$ 2,400.00 Cost for time spent finding and negotiating

with other suppliers to make up for Nu

Vacuum’s failure to provide additional

chambers and bases. 

Case 1:05-cv-00229-JM Document 12 Filed 10/06/05 Page 1 of 2
2

$ 800.00 Cost for time spent finding and negotiating

with other suppliers for bases that Nu Vacuum

was supposed to supply along with the two

chambers. 

$ 1,600.00 Administrative cost for time incurred by Jim

Bosco, Dick LeCompt and Karl Pexider

arranging repairs and expediting delivery of

the late delivered and defective chambers. 

$24,000.00 Cost of overtime paid to GT shop employees

for work towards meeting contractual shipment

obligations to clients, as a result of Nu

Vacuum’s failure to provide chambers and

bases as contracted. 

$94,318.00 Total

In addition, plaintiff is awarded legal fees of $2,607.50 and

legal expenses of $394.93. Judgment is entered in the total

amount of $97,320.43. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 6, 2005

cc: George R. Moore, Esq.

 Timothy E. Bray, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00229-JM Document 12 Filed 10/06/05 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 179 (Monday, September 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21409]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11411]


Florida Disaster Number FL-00036.

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 3.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Florida 
(FEMA-1785-DR), dated 08/24/2008.
    Incident: Tropical Storm Fay.
    Incident Period: 08/18/2008 and Continuing.
    Effective Date: 09/08/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/23/2008.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/25/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 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, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of 
Florida, dated 08/24/2008, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: Clay, Flagler, Gulf, Highlands, Martin, Nassau, Palm 
Beach, Suwannee, Taylor, Volusia.
Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    Georgia: Camden.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-21409 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 1 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 2 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 3 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 4 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 5 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 6 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 7 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 8 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 9 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 10 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 11 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 12 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 13 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 14 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 15 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 16 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 17 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 18 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 19 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 20 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 21 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 22 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 23 of 24
Case 1:04-cv-00337-JD Document 1 Filed 09/07/04 Page 24 of 24
Order entered January 31, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00528-CV

IN RE AMY HAGEN, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 469th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 469-54042-2016

ORDER

Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Smith

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for 

writ of mandamus.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

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

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Rand
Capital Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003
(the Form10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



           Dated: May 14, 2003

                                                  /s/ Allen F. Grum
                                           --------------------------------
                                               Allen F. Grum, President
                                              (Chief Executive Officer)
           Dated: May 14, 2003


                                               /s/ Daniel P. Penberthy
                                          ---------------------------------
                                            Daniel P. Penberthy, Treasurer
                                              (Chief Financial Officer)
#### Frederick F. WADDELL v. ISTROUMA WATER CO., Inc., et al.

No. 1407.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Jan. 21, 1935.

J. Y. Sanders, Jr., and Ben R. Bliller, both of Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Chas. A. Holcombe, of Baton Rouge, for appellees.

ELLIOTT, Judge.

In this case, for the reasons assigned in the consolidated cases, Waddell v. Langlois (La. App.) 158 So. 685, in acting on the appeal in case No. 7169 the judgment appealed from herein is affirmed; plaintiff-appellant to pay the cost in both courts.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Albert R. Kuperman

v. Case No. 05-cv-04-PB

Warden, Northern NH

Correctional Facility

Re: Document No. 14 Certificate of Appealability

Ruling: For the reasons set forth in the Report and

Recommendation of March 21, 2005, this applicant has not made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Motion denied.

Entered by: Paul Barbadoro, US District Judge

Date: June 17, 2005

cc: Albert Kuperman, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00004-PB Document 15 Filed 06/17/05 Page 1 of 1
#### Deiddi Negron, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered April 26, 1989, which, *inter alia,*denied the city’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiffs cross motion to dismiss the city’s second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth and tenth affirmative defenses, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The special legislation permitting plaintiff to file a late notice of claim against the city and the Health and Hospitals Corporation for permanent injuries allegedly sustained at his birth on May 17, 1968 at Morrisania Hospital and at all times thereafter during his treatment there (L 1985, ch 819) does not relate to the "property, affairs or government of any local government” within the meaning of NY Constitution, article IX, §2 (b) (2) as that phrase has been interpreted by the courts *(see, City of New York v Village of Lawrence,*250 NY 429, 443-445; *Robertson v Zimmermann,*268 NY 52, 60). Thus, we perceive no violation of the city’s home rule powers. Nor do we find the legislation to be impermissively retroactive. Unlike *Matter of Beary v City of Rye*(44 NY2d 398, 413-414), where the court found that there was no clear expression that the Legislature intended to expose municipal corporations to the revival of ancient claims, the clear intention of the Legislature in enacting the special legislation here was to revive plaintiff’s time-barred claim and the law expressly does so. Indeed, in approving the bill, Governor Cuomo, who had disapproved an identical bill in 1984, stated: "While opponents point out that the bill creates a special exception, the Legislature, which wrote general policy in this area, has determined that this exception is warranted. Had the incident occurred during or after 1975, this bill would have been unnecessary. I am similarly persuaded by the unique circumstances of the case that an exception is justified.” (Exec mem to L 1985, ch 819,1985 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY, at 3330, 3331.)

We have considered the city’s other argument and find it to be without merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Carro and Milonas, JJ.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

QUAKER STATE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
Computation of Net Income Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31
(in thousands except per share data, unaudited)                                     1998             1997
===========================================================================     ============      ============
<S>                                                                             <C>              <C>         
 1.  Net income                                                                 $      1,618     $      6,865
                                                                                ============     ============

 2.  Average number of shares of capital
     Stock outstanding--Basic                                                         36,298           34,868

 3.  Shares issuable upon exercise of dilutive stock options outstanding
     during the period, based on
     average market prices                                                               276              102

 4. Average number of capital and capital equivalent
     shares outstanding--Diluted (2 + 3)                                              36,574           34,970

 5. Net income per capital and capital equivalent share - Basic
     (1 divided by 2)                                                           $       0.04     $       0.20
                                                                                ============     ============

 6. Net income per capital share assuming full dilution - Diluted
     (1 divided by 4)                                                           $       0.04     $       0.20
                                                                                ============     ============
</TABLE>


                                       18
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 1 3 , 2013

d1112 

# Order

Clerk November 1 3 , 2013

147804(19)(20)

MICHIGAN FINANCE AUTH ORITY,

Plaintiff/

Counter

- Defendant

- Appellant,

v SC: 147804

COA: 318451

Ingham CC: 13

- 000528

- CZ

HANS KIEBLER and DONOVAN VISSER,

Defendants/

Counter

- Plaintiffs

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.

Th e motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 16, 2013 order is considered, and

it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 32.2

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PGI Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Laurence A. Schiffer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     the Company.



/s/ Laurence A. Schiffer
---------------------------------------------------------
    Laurence A. Schiffer
    Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)      August 11, 2005


<FN>
* A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
  Company and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the
  Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 31.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, John V. Winfield, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Portsmouth
Square, Inc.;

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

4.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

    a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

    b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

    c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting; and

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing equivalent functions):

    a) all significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

    b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: November 10, 2005                       /s/ John V. Winfield
                                              ---------------------------
                                              John V. Winfield, President
                                              and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William J. Carey

V .

Manchester Police Depa rtment, et al.

Civil No . 05-cv-293-JD

ORDE R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated January 17, 2006 .

SO ORDERED.

February 13, 2006 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: William J. Carey, pro se

Robert J. Meagher, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00293-JD Document 13 Filed 02/13/06 Page 1 of 1