alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

New England College

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00424-JL

Drew University, et al.

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for

December 30, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. will include a substantive,

meaningful discussion of the parties’ claims and defenses. 

Counsel are expected to be prepared to engage in an open,

cooperative discussion in good faith. Counsel are reminded of

the obligations imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) and (4), and

should be prepared to explain the factual basis underlying any

claims or defenses they have pleaded.

Each party shall be represented at the Preliminary Pretrial

Conference by counsel authorized to bind the party on all

matters.

To the extent that the substance of this order constitutes a

departure from the customary Preliminary Pretrial practice to

Case 1:08-cv-00424-JL Document 19 Filed 12/29/08 Page 1 of 2
2

which counsel are accustomed, the court apologizes for the short

notice, and will bear this in mind at the conference.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: December 29, 2008

cc: William D. Pandolph, Esq.

John J. Peirano, Esq.

Kimberly A. Capadona, Esq.

Martha Van Oot, Esq.

John G. Vanacore, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00424-JL Document 19 Filed 12/29/08 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>






<ARTICLE>                 9
<MULTIPLIER>          1,000
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1997

<CASH>                                         46,820
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   217,871
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         98,622
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          102,191
<LOANS>                                     1,101,707
<ALLOWANCE>                                    16,442
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,500,997
<DEPOSITS>                                  1,176,841
<SHORT-TERM>                                  114,472
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            11,853
<LONG-TERM>                                    43,104
<COMMON>                                        7,818
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                    146,909
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              1,500,997
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                96,948
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              20,391
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  133
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                              117,472
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             51,461
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             59,581
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          57,891
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   5,041
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                39,280
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                24,118
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     24,118
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   16,187
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.59
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   4.32
<LOANS-NON>                                     5,848









<LOANS-PAST>                                    4,451
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                26,500
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               14,795
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   3,742
<RECOVERIES>                                      348
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              16,442
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           16,442
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0


         





































</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Velasquez, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 298]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered June 6, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

There is no basis for reducing defendant’s conviction to a lesser offense in the interest of justice. While this Court has reduced convictions in the interest of justice for the purpose of correcting errors *(see e.g. People v Rosale,*227 AD2d 185 [1996]), we do not consider it appropriate to do so for the purpose of granting dispensations from mandatory sentencing statutes. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02260-BNB

EUGENE DURAN,

Applicant,

v.

PAMELA PLOUGHE, Acting Warden CTCF, and 

JOHN W. SUTHERS, the Attorney General of the State of Colorado,

Respondents.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE BOYD N. BOLAND

This matter is before the Court on the document titled “Motion to Supplement

Amended Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus” that Applicant Eugene Duran,

submitted to and filed with the Court on April 9, 2012. The motion to supplement does

not comply with the order of March 21, 2012 (ECF No. 21), granting Mr. Duran’s motion

to amend and directing him to file an amended application within thirty days, and

therefore is DENIED. 

Mr. Duran will be allowed one final opportunity to file on the Court-approved

Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 form an amended

application that complies with all the directives of the March 21 order. Mr. Duran’s

attention particularly is directed to the final paragraph beginning on page 2 and ending

on page 3 of the March 21 order, which explains in explicit detail the requirements for

filing an amended application that replaces the application he originally filed, and makes

clear that the amended application must stand on its own without reference to other

documents filed by Applicant. Failure to comply with the March 21 order within twentyone (21) days from the date of this order will result in the dismissal of the instant

action. No extensions of time will be granted without just cause. 

Dated: April 10, 2012

 

Case 1:11-cv-02260-BNB Document 23 Filed 04/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

Regarding:

      1)    Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the 1988 Stock
            Incentive Plan (File #33-38427).

      2)    Registration Statement on Form S-3 relating to the Dividend
            Reinvestment Plan (File #333-02063).

      3)    Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the 1992 Director
            Fee Plan (File #33-48031).

      4)    Registration Statement on Form S-3 relating to the Main Line
            Bancshares, Inc. Stock Option Agreements (File #33-50526).

      5)    Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the 1990 Non-
            Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan (File #33-59372).

      6)    Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the 1992 Stock
            Incentive Plan (File #33-68800).

      7)    Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Elmwood
            Bancorp, Inc. Key Employee Stock Compensation Program
            (File #33-77358)

      8)    Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Amended and
            Restated Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement with Donald E. Stone
            (File #33-77354).

      9)    Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to The Frankford
            Corporation 1983 Incentive Stock Option Plan (File #33-82088).

     10)    Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the 1995 Employee
            Stock Purchase Plan (File #33-91572).

     11)    Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the 1995 Management
            Stock Purchase Plan (File #33-91574).

     12)    Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the National American
            Bancorp, Inc. 1994 Employee Stock Option Plan (File # 333-02065).

     13)    Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the 1995 Non-Employee
            Director's Stock Option Plan (File # 333-04281).

We  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  above  listed
Registration  Statements  of our report  dated,  January  31,  1997,  with
respect to the consolidated  financial  statements of Keystone  Financial, Inc.
and  subsidiaries  incorporated  by  reference in this Annual  Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.



                                        ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                    




      Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
      March 7, 1997

                                        


                                      101
7

A.3. Volume of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersBillions of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period Total livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid1995...... 84.1 12.7 5.2 27.3 2.7 36.1 5.4 8.3 16.0 54.4 1996...... 87.3 10.6 4.0 35.9 2.4 34.5 5.0 7.1 13.9 61.3 1997...... 71.4 8.0 5.3 23.6 2.7 31.9 5.0 7.4 15.8 43.3 1998...... 68.0 6.1 4.4 25.2 4.9 27.5 4.5 6.7 14.9 41.9 1999...... 60.6 4.9 4.2 28.4 5.2 18.0 4.2 6.6 15.1 34.9 2000...... 50.2 4.8 4.5 27.6 3.9 9.3 4.2 6.5 12.6 26.8 2001...... 51.6 5.1 4.7 21.7 4.1 16.1 3.7 5.9 12.6 29.3 2002...... 56.2 5.3 5.1 28.8 2.9 14.1 4.1 6.3 14.3 31.5 2003...... 51.1 7.9 4.5 24.5 4.3 10.0 3.4 5.3 13.5 28.8 2004...... 64.4 6.0 6.7 29.9 6.0 15.9 3.3 5.4 13.2 42.5 2005...... 59.3 6.6 5.1 26.9 6.7 14.0 2.9 4.7 12.5 39.2 2006...... 67.9 7.4 6.4 30.3 7.9 15.8 2.8 5.4 14.0 45.7 2004: Q1... 72.2 5.2 5.4 39.7 6.7 15.1 3.1 5.0 14.9 49.1  Q2... 60.2 3.8 4.7 30.2 3.9 17.6 4.0 6.5 13.0 36.7  Q3... 54.2 2.3 7.3 21.1 5.9 17.6 3.5 5.3 10.3 35.1  Q4... 71.0 12.6 9.2 28.6 7.4 13.2 2.6 4.8 14.7 48.9 2005: Q1... 55.2 5.3 5.3 34.4 2.5 7.7 2.4 4.2 13.7 34.8  Q2... 76.6 7.7 3.7 29.9 11.0 24.3 3.8 5.9 12.7 54.1  Q3... 59.1 3.4 6.1 24.4 10.1 15.2 3.2 4.7 12.6 38.7  Q4... 46.4 10.2 5.5 18.8 3.2 8.7 2.2 4.1 11.0 29.1 2006: Q1... 67.0 5.3 6.2 40.2 4.5 10.9 2.9 4.7 14.3 45.1  Q2... 80.2 5.0 6.2 34.8 16.6 17.7 3.3 6.7 15.4 54.7  Q3... 63.5 9.2 7.3 21.8 5.2 20.0 2.6 5.6 12.2 43.2  Q4... 60.8 10.0 6.1 24.5 5.4 14.8 2.3 4.7 14.1 39.7 2007: Q1... 69.6 5.9 5.3 40.0 3.5 14.9 2.3 4.8 13.4 49.1  Q2... 61.7 3.7 4.1 35.0 5.4 13.5 3.4 6.8 16.2 35.3  Q3... 53.6 3.3 4.9 23.9 7.5 14.1 2.6 5.4 13.1 32.4  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02257-MSK-MJW

JAMES F. BLUM,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOM CLEMENTS, in his official capacity as Executve Director of Colorado Department of

Corrections;

TRAVIS TRANI, individually and in his official capacity as Warden of Colorado Department of

Corrections;

ANTHONY A. DeCESARO, grievance officer, Colorado Department of Corrections,

individually and in his official capacity;

LEE ROMANSKI, a member of the sex offender treatment team at Arrowhead Correctional

Facility, individually and in her official capacity;

DANIEL CLAUS, individually and in his official capacity;

S. MICHAEL DUNLAP, individually and in his official capacity;

BURL McCULLAR, individually and in his official capacity;

MARGARET HEIL, individually and in her official capacity;

DAVID TESSIER, individually and in his official capacity;

J.D. SCOLLARD, individually and in his official capacity;

CHRISTINE TYLER, individually and in her official capacity;

DANA KRAKOW, individually and in her official capacity;

BONNIE CANTU, individually and in her official capacity;

CHRISTINA MARQUEZ, individually and in her official capacity;

JENNIFER MARTINEZ, individually and in her official capacity;

LEONARD WOODSON, individually and in his official capacity; and

BRIAN KOCH, individually and in his official capacity,

Defendants.

ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS

IT IS ORDERED that, as to any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary

hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and

Case 1:11-cv-02257-MSK-MJW Document 3 Filed 09/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60

days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The

Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will

be destroyed.

DATED this 1st day of September, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02257-MSK-MJW Document 3 Filed 09/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Case 1:08-cv-00486-JD   Document 6   Filed 12/30/08   Page 1 of 1
174 La. 94

#### ITALIAN HOMESTEAD ASS’N v. LEWIS (HARTMAN-SALMEN CO., Inc., Intervener).

No. 31623.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1932.

*770O’Niell & O’Niell, of New Orleans, for in-tervener.

Michel Provosty and Oliver P. Carriere, both of New Orleans, for respondent Italian Homestead Ass’n.

ST. PAUL, J.

Plaintiff sued out executory process against-the defendant, seizing certain properties belonging to him. The Hartman-Salmen Co. Inc., intervened, claiming a builders’ lien upon particular lots embraced in the mortgage, and asked that said lots be sold separately and not in block. The district judge refusgd to order a separate sale, and the intervener applied to this court for relief.

Whereupon this court issued an order forbidding the sheriff to sell “confusedly with the other property seized,” the property on which the intervener claims a lien; and thereupon the sheriff proceeded to sell the various parcels separately.

The case therefore presents no issue for this court to decide. The relators (interven-ers) have obtained all that they sought by the writ, to wit, the parcels on which they claim a lien were not sold confusedly with the other property seized; and the plaintiffs have not asked that all the property be sold confusedly, nor could they very well do so until the adjudications made by-the sheriff be first set aside, if indeed they be entitled to that relief.

The application must therefore be dismissed.

We cannot award interveners costs, as prayed for by them, because we are deciding neither for nor against them.

 We cannot remand the matter to the lower court for further consideration by that court, as asked for by the plaintiff, for the reason that the judge a quo is powerless to grant or refuse the relief asked for here, to wit, a mandamus, prohibition, or certiorari against himself; and we cannot in this court pass upon the merits of interveners’ claim for a lien, or upon the validity or. .propriety of the adjudications made by the sheriff. To do so would be to exercise original jurisdiction, and we have no such jurisdiction in a matter like this.

It remains for us, as we have said, only to dismiss the application as presenting nothing which we can pass upon, and the costs must remain as incurred.

Decree.

The application herein made is dismissed, without prejudice to the ultimate rights of any and all parties.

O’NIELL, G. J., is recused.
**Exhibit 10.13**

 

RELEASE

 

In consideration of forty-five thousand              00/100dollars ($45, 000.00) and other valuable consideration paid by DatamegCorporation (“releasee”) to Hickey Hills Partners, LLC (“releasor’), itsmembers, partners, agents, servants, employees, representatives, attorneys,successors and assigns the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged the releasorhereby remises, releases and forever discharges the said releasee from alldebts, demands, actions, causes of actions, suits, accounts, covenants, contracts,agreements, damages and any and all claims, demands and liabilities whatsoeverof every name and nature, both in LAW and EQUITY, which the said releasor orits members, partners, agents, servants, employees, representatives, attorneys,successors and assigns now or ever had against the said releasee arising on theaccount of monies owed by the releasee to the releasor and more particularly onaccount of the legal action of Hickey Hill Partners, LLC vs. Datameg Corp.,Boston Municipal Court No. 03 CV 3626.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF and under seal, the saidHickey Hills Partners, LLC has caused this instrument to be executed this    dayof April, 2005.

 
| Witness: |   | Hickey Hills Partners, LLC |
|----------|--------|----------------------------|
|     |   |                       |
|     |   |                       |
|     |   |                       | By: | /s/ David H. Galpern |   |
|     |   |                       | David H. Galpern |
|     |   |                       | Authorized Agent |
|          |        |                            |  |  |  |

 

----
7

A.3. Volume of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersBillions of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period Total livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid1997...... 71.4 8.0 5.3 23.6 2.7 31.9 5.0 7.4 15.8 43.3 1998...... 68.0 6.1 4.4 25.2 4.9 27.5 4.5 6.7 14.9 41.9 1999...... 60.6 4.9 4.2 28.4 5.2 18.0 4.2 6.6 15.1 34.9 2000...... 50.2 4.8 4.5 27.6 3.9 9.3 4.2 6.5 12.6 26.8 2001...... 51.6 5.1 4.7 21.7 4.1 16.1 3.7 5.9 12.6 29.3 2002...... 56.2 5.3 5.1 28.8 2.9 14.1 4.1 6.3 14.3 31.5 2003...... 51.1 7.9 4.5 24.5 4.3 10.0 3.4 5.3 13.5 28.8 2004...... 64.4 6.0 6.7 29.9 6.0 15.9 3.3 5.4 13.2 42.5 2005...... 59.3 6.6 5.1 26.9 6.7 14.0 2.9 4.7 12.5 39.2 2006...... 67.9 7.4 6.4 30.3 7.9 15.8 2.8 5.4 14.0 45.7 2007...... 64.8 5.6 5.6 32.5 5.5 15.6 2.7 5.7 14.8 41.6 2008...... 77.6 5.6 7.4 40.2 3.8 20.7 2.5 5.7 15.1 54.4 2005: Q4... 46.4 10.2 5.5 18.8 3.2 8.7 2.2 4.1 11.0 29.1 2006: Q1... 67.0 5.3 6.2 40.2 4.5 10.9 2.9 4.7 14.3 45.1  Q2... 80.2 5.0 6.2 34.8 16.6 17.7 3.3 6.7 15.4 54.7  Q3... 63.5 9.2 7.3 21.8 5.2 20.0 2.6 5.6 12.2 43.2  Q4... 60.8 10.0 6.1 24.5 5.4 14.8 2.3 4.7 14.1 39.7 2007: Q1... 69.6 5.9 5.3 40.0 3.5 14.9 2.3 4.8 13.4 49.1  Q2... 61.7 3.7 4.1 35.0 5.4 13.5 3.4 6.8 16.2 35.3  Q3... 53.6 3.3 4.9 23.9 7.5 14.1 2.6 5.4 13.1 32.4  Q4... 74.4 9.3 8.3 31.2 5.5 20.1 2.7 5.7 16.3 49.7 2008: Q1... 83.7 6.6 5.9 47.7 3.2 20.3 2.3 5.6 14.0 61.9  Q2... 76.7 4.5 6.3 39.4 5.8 20.7 2.9 5.6 16.5 51.6  Q3... 69.1 3.3 7.6 35.3 3.9 19.0 2.4 5.3 12.8 48.5  Q4... 81.1 8.0 9.7 38.5 2.3 22.6 2.6 6.1 17.0 55.4 2009: Q1... 96.4 5.9 5.5 63.8 4.8 16.5 2.3 5.3 15.9 72.9  Q2... 61.9 3.8 4.2 37.9 2.9 13.2 2.7 5.6 14.9 38.7  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.2

     Certificate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Georgia Community Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Elaine
S. Kendrick, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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


                                    /s/ Elaine S. Kendrick
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Elaine S. Kendrick, Secretary and Treasurer
                                   (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


August 12, 2002
#### In the Matter of Carl F., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[811 NYS2d 672]

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Queens County (Bogacz, J.), dated April 21, 2004, which, after a hearing, found that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of assault in the third degree and menacing in the third degree, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated June 29, 2004, which, upon the fact-finding order and after a hearing, adjudicated the appellant a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months.

*697Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order of disposition; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant on probation for a period of 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as the period of probation has expired; and it is further,

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the petition and supporting depositions contained sufficient nonhearsay allegations to establish, if true, the appellant’s commission of the criminal acts alleged against him *(see*Family Ct Act § 311.2 [3]; *Matter of Alex B.,*189 AD2d 813 [1993]). Moreover, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency *(see Matter of David H.,*69 NY2d 792 [1987]; *Matter of Canvas H.,*14 AD3d 511 [2005]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of assault in the third degree and menacing in the third degree *(see e.g. Matter of Canvas H.,*supra;*Matter of Adonnica L.,*1 AD3d 599 [2003]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence *(see*Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; *cf.*CPL 470.15 [5]). Cozier, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.