alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

E QUALCOM CORP. , Appellant,

v.

GLOBAL COMMERCE CENTER ASSOCIATION, INC. , Appellee

.

No. 4D 15

- 1382

[ September 2, 2015 ]

Appeal of non

- final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Cynthia G. Imperato , Judge; L.T. Case
No. CACE 08

- 001242 (21)

.

Michael R. Bass of Michael R. Bass, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Michael R. D’Lugo of Wicker, Smith, O’ Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A., Orlando , for appellee.

C ONC ESSION OF E RROR

P ER C URIAM

.

Pursuant to a ppellee’s proper concession of error, we reverse the trial court’s order amending the writs of garnishment issued against

a ppellant’s te nants into continuing writs of garnishment, and remand this case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

Reversed and Remanded

.

W ARNER , M AY and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00361-WYD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. THOMAS DANIEL SANCHEZ,

Defendant.

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court following the November 28, 2012 status

conference. Consistent with the colloquy on the record at that hearing, it is

ORDERED that all pretrial motions shall be filed by 5:00 pm on December 7,

2012, and responses to these motions shall be filed by December 12, 2012. A hearing

on any such motion is set for December 17, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that a four day jury trial is set for January 22, 2013, at

8:30 a.m. in courtroom A-1002. A final trial preparation conference is set for January

16, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. 

Dated: November 29, 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

Wiley Y. Daniel

Chief United States District Judge
#### In the Matter of John Bonkoski, Appellant, v Village of Suffern et al., Respondents.

[744 NYS2d 506]

In a proceed*405ing pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Chief of Police, Suffern Police Department, dated April 3, 2001, which denied the petitioner’s application for line-of-duty benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated September 28, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant, a police officer, was injured while attempting to push a disabled police vehicle while on duty. He applied for benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c and the Chief of Police, Suffern Police Department, denied the application. The determination that the appellant did not sustain injuries in the performance of his duties was not arbitrary or capricious as the petitioner was not engaged in special work related to the nature of heightened risks and duties *(see Balcerak v County of Nassau,*94 NY2d 253; *Matter of Sutherland v Village of Suffern,*289 AD2d 582, *lv denied*97 NY2d 613). Santucci, J.P., Altman, Florio and S. Miller, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32



Modem Media, Inc. 906 Certification



The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Form 10-Q dated as of September 30, 2003 (the Report) for the
purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



Marc C. Particelli, the Chief Executive Officer and Frank J. Connolly, Jr.,
the Chief Financial Officer of Modem Media, Inc. each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Modem Media, Inc.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Marc C. ParticelliMarc C. Particelli Chief Executive Officer/s/ Frank J. Connolly, Jr.Frank J. Connolly, Jr. Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                       Modem Media, Inc. 906 Certification

     The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the
Form 10-Q dated as of September 30, 2003 (the "Report") for the purpose of
complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code.

     Marc C. Particelli, the Chief Executive Officer and Frank J. Connolly, Jr.,
the Chief Financial Officer of Modem Media, Inc. each certifies that, to the
best of his knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Modem Media, Inc.


                                        /s/ Marc C. Particelli
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                            Marc C. Particelli
                                            Chief Executive Officer


                                        /s/ Frank J. Connolly, Jr.
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                            Frank J. Connolly, Jr.
                                            Chief Financial Officer
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1155 

To treat payments under the Conservation Reserve Program as rentals from 

real estate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 18, 2007 

Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. ALLARD, 

Mr. HARKIN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, 

Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. THUNE, and Mr. LEVIN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To treat payments under the Conservation Reserve Program 

as rentals from real estate. 

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 ‘‘Conservation Reserve 

5 Program Tax Fairness Act of 2007’’. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 1155 IS

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CONSERVATION RESERVE PRO2 GRAM PAYMENTS AS RENTALS FROM REAL 

3 ESTATE. 

4 (a) INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.—Section 1402(a)(1) 

5 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining net earn6 ings from self-employment) is amended by inserting ‘‘and 

7 including payments under section 1233(2) of the Food Se8 curity Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3833(2))’’ after ‘‘crop 

9 shares’’. 

10 (b) SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.—Section 211(a)(1) of 

11 the Social Security Act is amended by inserting ‘‘and in12 cluding payments under section 1233(2) of the Food Secu13 rity Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3833(2))’’ after ‘‘crop 

14 shares’’. 

15 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 this section shall apply to payments made before, on, or 

17 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

18 (d) MAINTENANCE OF TRANSFERS TO TRUST

19 FUNDS.—There are hereby appropriated to the Federal 

20 Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, the Federal 

21 Disability Insurance Trust Fund, and the Federal Hos22 pital Insurance Trust Fund established under the Social 

23 Security Act amounts equal to the reduction in revenues 

24 to the Treasury by reason of the enactment of this Act. 

25 Amounts appropriated by the preceding sentence shall be 

26 transferred from the general fund at such times and in 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•S 1155 IS

1 such manner as to replicate to the extent possible the 

2 transfers which would have occurred to such Trust Funds 

3 had this Act not been enacted. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01936-RPM-KMT 

RENEE RANSOM, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Washington limited 

liability company, 

Defendant.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

THE COURT having reviewed the Stipulation of Dismissal with 

Prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and being fully advised in the 

premises, DOES HEREBY ORDER that this case is Dismissed with Prejudice, 

with each party to pay her or its own attorney’s fees and costs. 

BY THE COURT:

November 22, 2011     s/Richard P. Matsch

DATE Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-01936-RPM -KMT Document 12 Filed 11/22/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
B.2. Delinquent Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Share of outstanding farm production

Estimated volume (billions of dollars) loans (percent)

Nonperforming Nonperforming 

Past due Past due

30 to 89 Past due 30 to 89 Past due

days, 90 days, Non- days, 90 days, NonPeriod Total accruing Total accruing accruing Total accuring Total accruing accruing

1995...... .8 .4 .4 .1 .3 2.1 .9 1.1 .3 .9

1996...... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.4 1.2 1.3 .3 1.0

1997...... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.0 .9 1.1 .2 .9

1998...... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.2 1.0 1.2 .3 .9

1999...... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .8 1.3 .2 1.1

2000...... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .9 1.2 .2 1.0

2001...... 1.3 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.7 1.2 1.5 .2 1.3

2002...... 1.2 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.6 1.0 1.6 .3 1.3

2003...... 1.0 .4 .7 .1 .5 2.3 .8 1.5 .3 1.2

2004...... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .5 1.0 .2 .9

2005...... .6 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

1998: Q4... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.2 1.0 1.2 .3 .9

1999: Q1... 1.6 .9 .7 .2 .4 3.7 2.1 1.5 .5 1.0

 Q2... 1.3 .5 .7 .2 .5 2.8 1.2 1.6 .5 1.1

 Q3... 1.0 .4 .6 .2 .5 2.2 .8 1.4 .4 1.0

 Q4... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .8 1.3 .2 1.1

2000: Q1... 1.3 .6 .6 .2 .5 3.0 1.5 1.5 .4 1.1

 Q2... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .4 2.2 .9 1.3 .3 1.0

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 1.9 .7 1.2 .2 1.0

 Q4... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .9 1.2 .2 1.0

2001: Q1... 1.7 1.0 .8 .2 .6 3.9 2.2 1.7 .4 1.3

 Q2... 1.4 .6 .8 .2 .6 2.9 1.2 1.8 .4 1.3

 Q3... 1.3 .5 .8 .2 .7 2.8 1.0 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.3 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.7 1.2 1.5 .2 1.3

2002: Q1... 1.7 .9 .8 .2 .6 3.9 2.1 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q2... 1.4 .5 .8 .2 .6 2.9 1.2 1.8 .5 1.3

 Q3... 1.3 .4 .8 .2 .6 2.7 .9 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.2 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.6 1.0 1.6 .3 1.3

2003: Q1... 1.7 .9 .8 .2 .6 4.0 2.1 1.9 .4 1.5

 Q2... 1.4 .5 .9 .2 .7 3.1 1.1 2.0 .5 1.5

 Q3... 1.2 .4 .8 .2 .6 2.7 .9 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.0 .4 .7 .1 .5 2.3 .8 1.5 .3 1.2

2004: Q1... 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5 3.0 1.3 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q2... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .7 1.3 .3 1.0

 Q3... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.7 .6 1.1 .2 .9

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .5 1.0 .2 .9

2005: Q1... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.3 1.2 1.1 .3 .9

 Q2... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .3 .8

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .5 .8 .2 .6

 Q4... .6 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

2006: Q1... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.8 1.1 .8 .2 .5

 Note. Data are estimates of the national totals for non-real-estate farm loans. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude foreign

results for large banks that report farm delinquencies on a consolidated basis and for small banks that are allowed to report

delinquencies according to their internal definition of agricultural loans. Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data

are as of end of quarter.

22
Case 1:11-po-00105-DW Document 20 Filed 11/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10
Case 1:11-po-00105-DW Document 20 Filed 11/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10
Case 1:11-po-00105-DW Document 20 Filed 11/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10
Case 1:11-po-00105-DW Document 20 Filed 11/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10
Case 1:11-po-00105-DW Document 20 Filed 11/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10
Case 1:11-po-00105-DW Document 20 Filed 11/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10
Case 1:11-po-00105-DW Document 20 Filed 11/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10
Case 1:11-po-00105-DW Document 20 Filed 11/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10
Case 1:11-po-00105-DW Document 20 Filed 11/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10
Case 1:11-po-00105-DW Document 20 Filed 11/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10
DISTRICT COURT, DENVER COUNTY, 

COLORADO 

Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street 

 Denver, CO 80202 

Plaintiff: 

MICHELE AND CHRISTOPHER J. YOUNG, 

v. 

Defendants: 

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE COMPANY; 

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE; 

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION 

SYSTEMS; AND JOHN DOES I AND II AND DOES 

3-10. 

▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲

Case Number: 2011-CV-4378 

Division: 376 

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 

 THE COURT, having reviewed Defendants Wachovia Mortgage Company, Wells Fargo 

Home Mortgage, and Mortgage Electronic Registration System’s Unopposed Motion for 

Extension of Time to Answer, Move, or Otherwise Respond to Complaint, 

 HEREBY ORDERS that the Motion is granted, and it is 

 FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Wachovia Mortgage Company, Wells Fargo 

Home Mortgage, and Mortgage Electronic Registration System shall respond to the Complaint 

by August 16, 2011. 

DONE and ORDERED this _____ day of ________________, 2011. 

BY THE COURT: 

________________________________ 

District Court Judge 

fb.us.7069765.01 

GRANTED 

 

 

Movant shall serve copies of this ORDER on 

any pro se parties, pursuant to CRCP 5, and 

file a certificate of service with the Court 

within 10 days. 

Dated: Jul 26, 2011 

Catherine A. Lemon 

District Court Judge 

DATE OF ORDER INDICATED ON ATTACHMENT

 

EFILED Document 

CO Denver County District Court 2nd JD 

Filing Date: Jul 26 2011 10:05AM MDT 

Filing ID: 38892640 

Review Clerk: Lillian L Vondra

Case 1:11-cv-01963-CMA-MEH Document 6 Filed 07/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 7377

CARLTON EUGENE ANDERSON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. JOHN A. HERRING , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Frank D. Whitney , Chief District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv - 00265

- FDW )

Submitted : April 4, 2019 Decided: April 10, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Carlton Eugene Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Carlton Eugene Anderson seeks to a ppeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealab ility will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists w ould find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural gr ounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record a nd conclude that Anderson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials bef ore this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          52,870
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    203,923
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          60,146
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            63,223
<LOANS>                                        731,194
<ALLOWANCE>                                      9,243
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,078,475
<DEPOSITS>                                     746,520
<SHORT-TERM>                                   147,507
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             15,378
<LONG-TERM>                                     48,990
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,100
<OTHER-SE>                                     115,980
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,078,475
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 68,261
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               15,522
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   201
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                83,984
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              32,472
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,616
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           43,368
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    4,088
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  22
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 31,054
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,047
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      18,047
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,846
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.62
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.79
<LOANS-NON>                                      5,533
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,643
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,482
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 8,243
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    3,768
<RECOVERIES>                                       732
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                9,243
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             9,243
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof BPZ Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31,2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Edward G. Caminos, as Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tothe best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 
| */s/ Edward G. Caminos* |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Edward G. Caminos       |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |
| May 10, 2010       |   |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-1980-LTB

LORENZO D. HALL, SR.,

Applicant,

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND, and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents.

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

Babcock, Senior Judge

Applicant has submitted a Notice of Appeal. Applicant previously was allowed to proceed in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in this court in this action. The court has examined the file and has

determined that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must be denied. Pursuant to Rule 24(a)(3)

of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the court finds that this appeal is not taken in good faith

because applicant has not shown the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts

in support of the issues raised on appeal. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied because this appeal is not

taken in good faith.

DATED at Denver, Colorado this 13th day of September, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock

SENIOR JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
#### Penquin Tenants Corp., as Successor in Interest to 1923 West 9th Street Corp., Respondent, v Shepard Ellenberg, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[805 NYS2d 837]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered June 16, 2004, which, inter alia, denied defendant Ellenberg’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Upon reading the lease as a whole, and giving full force and effect to every provision and in such manner as to avoid contradiction (s*ee National Conversion Corp. v Cedar Bldg. Corp.,*23 NY2d 621, 625 [1969]; *Zodiac Enters. v American Broadcasting Cos.,*81 AD2d 337, 339 [1981], *affd*56 NY2d 738 [1982]), the court properly found that Ellenberg failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the merger clause overrode paragraph 35 of the lease, which empowered plaintiff to enact new house rules. Because the documentary evidence of the lease was not disposi*346tive on plaintiffs lack of power to enact such rules, the dismissal motion, brought pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), was properly denied *(see Standard Chartered Bank v D. Chabbott, Inc.,*178 AD2d 112 [1991]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.