alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Saul Hernandez, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 804]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hudson, J.), rendered October 20, 2006, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Rivera, J.P, Florio, Angiolillo, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.
#### Standard Realty Associates, Inc., Appellant, v Chelsea Gardens Corp. et al., Respondents.

[964 NYS2d 94]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered January 27, 2012, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion with respect to the causes of action for trespass and unjust enrichment, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ submissions show that the western wall of defendant Chelsea’s building was leased to a nonparty for the purpose of posting an advertising sign, which protruded into plaintiffs airspace without plaintiff’s consent or permission. While the encroachment of the four-inch bolts and the advertising sign is small, it remains a trespass where defendants are liable for the use of plaintiffs property rights *(cf. Sakele Bros, v Safdie,*302 AD2d 20, 27 [1st Dept 2002]; *Salesian Socy. v Village of Ellenville,*121 AD2d 823, 824 [3d Dept 1986]). We reject defendants’ contention that dismissal of the trespass claim was warranted because the encroachment of four inches was minimal. An invasion of another’s property or airspace need not be more than de minimis in order to constitute a trespass *(cf. Hoffmann Invs. Corp. v Yuval,*33 AD3d 511, 512 [1st Dept 2006]; *Wing Ming Props. [U.S.A.] v Mott Operating Corp.,*172 AD2d 301 [1st Dept 1991], *affd*79 NY2d 1021 [1992]).

The motion court properly dismissed the portion of plaintiffs claim based on the temporary use of airspace to hang scaffolding while installing signs in the past as de minimis. Defendants could have sought a license for the use of airspace during the installation of each sign *(see*RPAPL 881). At that time, if appropriate, plaintiff could have requested injunctive relief. Notwithstanding, the relief of an injunction is a drastic remedy “granted [only] in a clear case, reasonably free from doubt” *(116 E. 57th St, Inc. v Gould,*273 App Div 1000, 1000 [1st Dept 1948], *lv denied*274 App Div 782 [1948]), and plaintiff has not asserted damage to its property interest that required injunctive relief.

Issues of fact exist as to plaintiffs unjust enrichment claim since plaintiff alleged that defendants earned income through the use of its airspace rights, for which it should be compensated. Moreover, defendants have not shown that the unjust enrichment claim is time-barred. The lease defendants submitted in support of their motion shows that plaintiff commenced the action well within the six-year statute of limitations *(see*CPLR *511213 [1]). Further, defendants have not submitted any other leases or evidence showing that the claim is time-barred.

Concur—Tom, J.E, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.
# Degree

### Explore NIU Degree Programs

Click below to read more information about NIU Degree programs. 

####  Bachelor of Science in Intelligence 

#### Master of Science in Strategic Intelligence 

####  Master of Science and Technology Intelligence

**Note:**  All prospective NIU students must meet the **eligibility criteria** before applying.
#### Marie M. Wright, Appellant, v Michael Denard, Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 712]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (John J. Ark, J.), entered June 29, 2012 in a breach of contract action. The order granted the motion of defendant to vacate a default judgment and order, and to extend the time in which to serve an answer.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the judgment and order entered on defendant’s default is reinstated.

Memorandum: In this breach of contract action, plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment and order entered against him upon his default in answering the complaint and to extend the time in which to serve an answer. We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion. Although defendant did not specify the statutory basis for his motion, we note that it appears that he sought relief pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) and (4), based on excusable neglect and lack of jurisdiction. Addressing first CPLR 5015 (a) (4), defendant was not entitled to vacatur on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over him *(see Pilawa v Dalbey,*275 AD2d 1035, 1036 [2000]). The af*1331fidavit of plaintiffs process server constituted prima facie evidence that defendant was personally served pursuant to CPLR 308 (1) *(see Reich v Redley,*96 AD3d 1038, 1038 [2012]), and defendant failed to rebut the presumption of proper service by providing “specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server’s affidavit[ ]” *(Indymac Fed. Bank FSB v Quattrochi,*99 AD3d 763, 764 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Christiana Bank & Trust Co. v Eichler,*94 AD3d 1170, 1170-1171 [2012]). Here, defendant submitted an affidavit in which he averred that he is brown-skinned and balding, not black-skinned and bald as described in the process server’s affidavit. Defendant did not, however, dispute the age, height and weight set forth in the affidavit of the process server, and he failed to identify the six-foot tall, more than 200-pound individual who allegedly accepted service at his residence. We thus conclude that defendant’s “denial of service in this case was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service created by the plaintiffs duly executed affidavit of service” *(Reich,*96 AD3d at 1038; *see generally Matter of Nazarian v Monaco Imports,*255 AD2d 265, 265-266 [1998]). To the extent that defendant’s motion was based on excusable default pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), we likewise conclude that he “failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his default [in answering the complaint inasmuch as] the only excuse he proffered was that he was not served with process” *(Stephan B. Gleich &*Assoc. *v Gritsipis,*87 AD3d 216, 221 [2011]; *see Reich,*96 AD3d at 1039; *see generally Pilawa,*275 AD2d at 1036). Present — Fahey, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                ------------


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

In connection with the Annual Report of Zoltek Companies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Zsolt Rumy, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
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.

Date: December 29, 2004                     By: /s/ Zsolt Rumy
                                               --------------------------------
                                                    Zsolt Rumy
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE LYRIC
ENERGY, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE INTERIM YEAR TO DATE PERIOD ENDED
JANUARY 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,089
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,724,222
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,736,311)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,089
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,089)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,089)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,089)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Wayne P. Garten, certify that: 

 
| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Hanover Direct, Inc.; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

2.   Based on my knowledge, this 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 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 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a.   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses 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 the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 
|  

 

/s/ Wayne P. Garten

Wayne P. Garten

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

 

  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Date: May 16, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 761 Referred in House (RFH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 761

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 17, 2005

                 Referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To rename the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area in 
   the State of Idaho as the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey 
   National Conservation Area in honor of the late Morley Nelson, an 
 international authority on birds of prey, who was instrumental in the 
    establishment of this National Conservation Area, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of 
Prey National Conservation Area Act''.

SEC. 2. RENAMING OF SNAKE RIVER BIRDS OF PREY NATIONAL CONSERVATION 
              AREA.

    (a) Renaming.--Public Law 103-64 is amended--
            (1) in section 2(2) (16 U.S.C. 460iii-1(2)), by inserting 
        ``Morley Nelson'' before ``Snake River Birds of Prey National 
        Conservation Area''; and
            (2) in section 3(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 460iii-2(a)(1)), by 
        inserting ``Morley Nelson'' before ``Snake River Birds of Prey 
        National Conservation Area''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Snake River Birds of 
Prey National Conservation Area shall be deemed to be a reference to 
the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area.
    (c) Technical Corrections.--Public Law 103-64 is further amended--
            (1) in section 3(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 460iii-2(a)(1)), by 
        striking ``(hereafter referred to as the `conservation 
        area')''; and
            (2) in section 4 (16 U.S.C. 460iii-3)--
                    (A) in subsection (a)(2), by striking 
                ``Conservation Area'' and inserting ``conservation 
                area''; and
                    (B) in subsection (d), by striking ``Visitors 
                Center'' and inserting ``visitors center''.

            Passed the Senate November 16, 2005.

            Attest:

                                             EMILY J. REYNOLDS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 As of the date hereof, I, Steven G. Mihaylo, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Quarterly Report of Inter-Tel, Incorporated on Form 10-Q for the
fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Inter-Tel, Incorporated. This written statement is being furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit accompanying this report and
shall not be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. By:
    
    /s/ Steven G. MihayloName:
    
    Steven G. MihayloTitle:
    
    Chief Executive OfficerDated:
    
    November 5, 2004
 40
#### GILLIS v. REICKS.

Civil Action No. 35195.

District Court of the' United States for the District of Columpia.

March *31, 1947.*

Louis F. Frick, of Washington, D. C., -for plaintiff.

Hanserd K. Presley, of Washington, D. C., for defendant.

PINE, Justice.

This is an action for damages for alienation of a wife’s affections. It was tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $2000. Defendant has moved to set aside the verdict and judgment entered thereon and for judgment in accordance with his motion for a directed verdict. Among the grounds given in his motion is one relevant only to a motion for a new trial. The motion is made under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 50(b), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

This rule has recently received consideration by the Supreme Court, Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 67 S.Ct. 752. In that case the Court points out that, where the trial judge believes the judgment on the verdict should not stand, the rule does not compel the entry of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but permits the granting of a new trial in the exercise of discretion, “with a fresh personal knowledge of the issues involved, the kind of evidence given, and the impression made by the witnesses.” Moreover, this case recognizes “that there are circumstances which might lead the trial court to believe that a new trial rather than a final termination of the trial stage of the *206controversy would better serve the ends of justice.”

Believing that the ends of justice would be better served by ordering a new trial herein, and, under the authority of the case above mentioned, an order granting a new trial will be entered.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  161,776
<ALLOWANCES>                                   117,999
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,777
<PP&E>                                         286,324
<DEPRECIATION>                                 257,619
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  84,010
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          413,430
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    710,000
<COMMON>                                        12,781
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,390,185
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    84,010
<SALES>                                        601,585
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               601,585
<CGS>                                          455,222
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  149,083
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,512
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,232)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,232)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 94 (Monday, May 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23183-23184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11467]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. AC09-86-000, AC09-86-001]


NW Pipeline Co.; Notice of Filing

May 11, 2009.
    Take notice that on April 24, 2009 and May 5, 2009, NW Pipeline Co. 
submitted requests for waiver of the requirement to file the FERC Form 
No. 6 from January 1, 2008 to February 23, 2008.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to

[[Page 23184]]

become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to 
intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be 
filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it 
is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons 
other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dd9b988f9e92b3b1b4b3b88ea8adadb2afa99dbbb8afbef3bab2ab"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="05434057464a6b696c6b60567075756a777145636077662b626a73">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: June 10, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11467 Filed 5-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>