alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Tariq Nawaz, Petitioner, v State University of New York University at Buffalo School of Dental Medicine, Respondent.

[744 NYS2d 623]

—CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to this Court by an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Rath, Jr., J.), entered March 22, 2002, seeking to annul the determination expelling petitioner from respondent’s dental program.

It is hereby ordered that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously annulled on the law without costs and the petition is granted in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, inter alia, to annul the determination expelling him from respondent’s dental program based on his violation of respondent’s Ethical Code. The charges stem from an incident that occurred while petitioner was a third-year dental student in the emergency dental clinic. Petitioner had fabricated a crown for a patient’s tooth and sought permission from Dr. Starring, the supervising clinical professor that day, to cement the crown onto the patient’s tooth. Dr. Starring denied permission and did not approve the crown, finding that it did not fit properly and had improper margins. Dr. Starring told petitioner to re-cement the temporary crown and “to reimpression” the patient’s tooth at the next visit in one month. Petitioner re-cemented the temporary crown and, at the patient’s next visit, was prepared “to reimpression.” Before doing so, however, petitioner presented the crown to Dr. Karam, the supervising clinical professor that day, who found the crown acceptable for cementing. Petitioner cemented the crown without advising Dr. Karam that Dr. Starring had not approved it. The patient *864reported no complaints concerning the crown, and the three dentists who examined the crown in situ on behalf of respondent found the crown acceptable.

The determination expelling petitioner for his violation of the Ethical Code is based on the findings that he had “not follow [ed] the direct request of a supervising faculty member, under whose license [he] was practicing” and that his actions were “unprofessional, unethical and unacceptable.” We agree with petitioner that the determination is arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by substantial evidence *(see generally Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d 222, 230-231). Although it may have been preferable for petitioner to inform Dr. Karam of Dr. Starring’s evaluation of the crown, petitioner was under the supervision of Dr. Karam when he cemented the crown and properly followed his instructions. Also, while under the supervision of Dr. Starring, he had properly followed her instructions. We therefore annul the determination expelling petitioner from the dental program. Present — Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE NINA Y. WANG

 

Civil Action: 11-cv-02285-NYW Date: September 28, 2018

Courtroom Deputy: Brandy Wilkins FTR: NYW COURTROOM A-502*

Parties Attorney(s)

CENTER FOR LEGAL ADVOCACY,

Caleb Durling

Ellie Lockwood

Iris Eytan

Jennifer L. Purrington

Timothy P. Scalo

Plaintiff,

v.

REGGIE BICHA,

TERESA A. BERNAL, 

Elizabeth J. McCarthy

Lauren K. Peach

Tanya E. Wheeler

Defendants.

COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER

ORAL ARGUMENT

Court in Session: 10:01 a.m.

Appearance of counsel. Mr. Mark Ivandick appears with counsel on behalf of Plaintiff. Dr. 

Robert Werthwein appears with counsel on behalf of Defendants. 

Parties submit an unopposed oral motion to restrict Exhibit No.’s 18 [97-18] and 19 [97-19]. 

Parties agree to refer to individuals by initials only. 

Discussion and argument held on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment to Enforce 

Settlement Agreement [96], and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [97] filed August 

15, 2018.

ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment to Enforce Settlement Agreement 

[96] is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT.

Case 1:11-cv-02285-NYW Document 107 Filed 09/28/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
ORDERED: Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [97] is TAKEN UNDER 

ADVISEMENT. 

Parties discuss if the stipulated exhibits will be admitted. The court requests that parties file all 

the exhibits to this proceeding on the docket. 

ORDERED: The oral motion is GRANTED. Exhibit No.’s 18 [97-18] and 19 [97-19] are 

RESTRICTED from the public docket. 

Court in Recess: 11:17 a.m. Hearing concluded. Total time in Court: 01:16

*To order transcripts of hearings, please contact either Patterson Transcription Company at (303) 755-4536 or 

AB Court Reporting & Video, Inc. at (303) 629-8534.

Case 1:11-cv-02285-NYW Document 107 Filed 09/28/18 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Order entered January 14, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01048-CV

WILLIAM CHARLES BUNDREN, ET AL., Appellants

V.

COLLIN CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 416-05054-2017

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ January 11, 2019 unopposed second motion for an 

extension of time to file a brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to January 18, 

2019.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>






                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1






              SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of CDSI Holdings Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
J. Lampen, Chief Executive 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 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.











August 14, 2007                               /s/ Richard J. Lampen
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Richard J. Lampen
                                       Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### Joseph Vitarelli, Appellant-Respondent, v Excel Automotive Tech. Center, Inc., Respondent-Appellant.

[811 NYS2d 689]

In an action for a judgment declaring that an option to purchase certain real property is unenforceable, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Carson, J.), dated April 14, 2005, as denied his motion for summary judgment, and the defendant cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment on its counterclaims.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Equity will reheve a tenant from a failure to timely exercise an option in a lease to renew or purchase if (1) the tenant in good faith made substantial improvements to the premises and would otherwise suffer a forfeiture, (2) the tenant’s delay was the result of an excusable default, and (3) the landlord was not prejudiced by the delay *(see J.N.A. Realty Corp. v Cross Bay Chelsea,*42 NY2d 392 [1977]; *P.L. Dev. v Fetterman,*293 AD2d 657 [2002]; *Souslian Wholesale Beer & Soda v 380-4 Union Ave. Realty Corp.,*166 AD2d 435 [1990]; *Tritt v Huffman & Boyle Co.,*121 AD2d 531 [1986]).

We agree with the Supreme Court that there is a triable issue of fact regarding whether the tenant would suffer a substantial forfeiture if its exercise of the option to purchase the premises were not deemed effective *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]; *see also J.N.A. Realty Corp. v Cross Bay Chelsea, supra; Expedite NYC v 1600 Stewart Ave.,*276 AD2d 740 [2000]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the landlord’s motion for summary judgment and the tenant’s cross motion for summary judgment on its counterclaims. Florio, J.P., Ritter, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1








                       XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX       XXXXXXXXXX
                       XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX     XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                       XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                             XXXXX          XXXXX      XXXXX
                             XXXXX          XXXXX      XXXXX
                             XXXXX          XXXXX      XXXXX
                             XXXXX          XXXXX      XXXXX
                             XXXXX          XXXXX      XXXXX
                             XXXXX          XXXXX      XXXXX
                             XXXXX          XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                             XXXXX           XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                             XXXXX             XXXXXXXXXX



      XXXXXXXXXX          XXXXXXXXXX       XXXX         XXXX    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXX      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX     XXXXX       XXXXX    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX    XXXXXX     XXXXXX    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
   XXXXX      XXXXX    XXXXX      XXXXX    XXXXXXX   XXXXXXX    XXXXX
   XXXXX               XXXXX      XXXXX    XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX    XXXXX
   XXXXX               XXXXX      XXXXX    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX    XXXXXXXXXXXXX
   XXXXX               XXXXX      XXXXX    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX    XXXXXXXXXXXXX
   XXXXX               XXXXX      XXXXX    XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX    XXXXX
   XXXXX      XXXXX    XXXXX      XXXXX    XXXXX  XXX  XXXXX    XXXXX
   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX    XXXXX   X   XXXXX    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXX      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX     XXXXX       XXXXX    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
      XXXXXXXXXX          XXXXXXXXXX       XXXXX       XXXXX    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 3Federal Reserve Bank of: PhiladelphiaFilings received during the week ending June 30, 2012FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNORTHFIELD BANCORP, INC                                                                                                 * SLHC Formation
##### 



Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION In connection with the Annual Report of Schawk, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, 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-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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. /s/ David A. Schawk David A. Schawk President and Chief Executive Officer  /s/ James J. Patterson James J. Patterson Sr. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  March 24, 2005
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 11Federal Reserve Bank of: DallasFilings received during the week ending April 18, 2015FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodCCBS HOLDING LLC                                                                                                        * 3A1CCBS Holding LLC, Irving, Texas, to become a bank holding company pursuant to Section 3(a)(1) of the Bank Holding Company Act by acquiring up to 77.37 percent of Canyon Bancorporation, Inc., Tucson, Arizona, and thereby indirectly acquiring control of Canyon Community Bank, National Association, Tucson, Arizona.Newspaper: 04/19/2015Federal Register: 04/23/2015FIRST FINANCIAL BANKSHARES, INC.                                                                                        * 3A5First Financial Bankshares, Inc., Abilene, Texas, to acquire by merger 100 percent of the outstanding common stock of FBC Bancshares, Inc., and therefore, indirectly, First Bank, National Association, both of Conroe, Texas.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 05/15/2015FROST BANK                                                                                                              * BranchNotice by Frost Bank, San Antonio, Texas, to establish a branch at 159 West Main Street, Lewisville, Texas 75057.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not applicableNEWCASTLE BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                              * 3A1Newcastle Bancshares, Inc., Newcastle, Texas, to become a bank holding company through the acquisition of 100 percent of Farmers State Bank of Newcastle, Newcastle, Texas. Newspaper: 05/05/2015Federal Register: 05/04/2015SECURITY HOLDING COMPANY                                                                                                CICRetroactive notice by James F. Kemp, Karen Sybil Kemp, Cynthia Susan Kemp, Keith Keller, Marjorie Keller, Stacy Lynn Loth, Kory Allen Keller, Mark Durst, Kay Keller Durst, and Daniel Wesley Kemp, all of Fredericksburg, Texas; Brian Daniel Kemp of San Marcos, Texas; Stephanie Ann Igler of San Angelo, Texas; Kristy Kay LeJeune of College Station, Texas; Kimberly Durst Bonnen of Friendswood, Texas; Kathleen Keller of Hye, Texas; and James L. Hayne, San Antonio, Texas, as trustee of the James L. Hayne, Ranch Trust of 2001 and Roxana C. Hayne, Ranch Trust of 2001; collectively, to retain control of 25 percent or more of the shares of Security Holding Company, and indirectly Security State Bank & Trust, both of Fredericksburg, Texas.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 05/05/2015VERITEX COMMUNITY BANK                                                                                                  * 18C
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ROBERT KLECKLEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-2366

[October 17, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Bernard I. Bober, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 99-015141 CF10A.

Robert Kleckley, South Bay, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Clifford J. Seifried, Respondent, v Gilda T. Seifried, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 445]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Falanga, J.), entered November 19, 2001, which, upon an order of the same court dated March 6, 2001, denying her motion to vacate her default in appearing for trial, and after an inquest, inter alia, awarded her only 30% of the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence.

Ordered that the defendant’s notice of appeal from an order of the same court, dated July 30, 2001, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

After the defendant defaulted in appearing for trial, the Supreme Court scheduled an inquest. Her subsequent motion to vacate her default was denied. Although this Court has adopted a liberal policy with respect to vacating defaults in matrimonial actions *(see Louis v Louis,*231 AD2d 612; *Fayet v Fayet,*214 AD2d 534), it is still incumbent upon the moving party to show a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense *(see Conner v Conner,*240 AD2d 614; *Baruch v Baruch,*224 AD2d 649). In light of the defendant’s repeated dereliction with regard to court appearances and obligations, and her failure to present both a reasonable excuse for her default and a meritorious defense, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to vacate her default and holding an inquest *(see Conner v Conner, supra; Baruch v Baruch, supra).*

*399Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly awarded the plaintiff a credit for the separate funds which he contributed to the purchase of the marital premises prior to equitable distribution of that asset *(see Robertson v Robertson,*186 AD2d 124; *Zago v Zago,*177 AD2d 691; *Coffey v Coffey,*119 AD2d 620). Further, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in distributing the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence. Based on the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court’s distribution of 30% of the proceeds to the defendant and 70% to the plaintiff was equitable *(see Balsamo v Balsamo,*200 AD2d 649; *Palmer v Palmer,*156 AD2d 651).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Altman, S. Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of World Heart Corporation (the Corporation)
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Morgan R. Brown, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to his knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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
Corporation as of March 31, 2011.



|                    |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                                                                   
|------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  |  | 
|Dated: May 13, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Morgan R.
Brown                                                                                               
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | Morgan R. Brown, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer)

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Corporation under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date
of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02217-LTB-BNB 

LIONEL WHITE, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendant. 

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF DEFENDANT’S OFFER OF 

JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 68 

To: CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC 

 c/o Joseph J. Lico, Esq. 

 Adam L. Plotkin, PC 

 621 Seventeenth Street, Suite 1800 

 Denver, CO 80293 

 

You are hereby notified that the Plaintiff, Lionel White, by counsel, accepts 

Defendant’s Offer of Judgment pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 68 served upon the 

Plaintiff by the Defendant, Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, and attached as 

Exhibit 1. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 Lionel White 

 By Counsel, 

_s/ David M. Larson____________ 

David M. Larson, Esq. 

405 S. Cascade Avenue, Suite 305 

Colorado Springs, CO 80903 

(719) 473-0006 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Case 1:11-cv-02217-LTB-BNB Document 6 Filed 09/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on September 28, 2011, I electronically filed the 

foregoing PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF DEFENDANT’S OFFER 

OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 68 along with Defendant’s Offer 

of Judgment attached as Exhibit 1 with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF 

system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail address: 

jlico@alp-pc.com 

I hereby certify that on September 28, 2011, a copy of the PLAINTIFF’S 

NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF DEFENDANT’S OFFER OF JUDGMENT 

PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 68 along with the Defendant’s Offer of Judgment 

attached as Exhibit 1 was faxed to 303-296-3544 and mailed via first class 

United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following interested parties: 

 CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC 

 c/o Joseph J. Lico, Esq. 

 Adam L. Plotkin, PC 

 621 Seventeenth Street, Suite 1800 

 Denver, CO 80293 

 

 ________s/ David M. Larson________ 

Case 1:11-cv-02217-LTB-BNB Document 6 Filed 09/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
31.1





Certificate
Pursuant to Section 302


of
Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002


CERTIFICATION
OF CEO





I, Andrew
Makrides, the Registrant's Chief Executive Officer, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Bovie Medical
Corporation;





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





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this annual 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;





Date:
November 30, 2009





/s/Andrew MakridesChief
      Executive Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136092 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 136092 

 COA: 276003 

Calhoun CC: 2006-003356-FC 

JEROME DEQUAN SHIPP,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 5, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0519 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

May 27, 2008 

 Clerk