alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Louise E. Dembeck, Appellant, v 220 Central Park South, LLC, Respondent.

[823 NYS2d 45]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered January 6, 2006, which, upon renewal, adhered to a prior determination granting summary judgment dismissal of plaintiffs claims for fraud, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered on or about March 29, 2006, which denied plaintiffs motion to stay discovery pending appeal of the earlier order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

*492Plaintiff, a former tenant of a building owned by defendant, sought compensatory and punitive damages for, in part, the landlord’s allegedly fraudulent concealment in misleading her to believe she was renting an apartment in a luxury, full-service building with two functioning passenger elevators, plus another service/freight elevator, when in fact the 21-story building had only one passenger elevator with a history of frequent breakdowns. Defendant moved successfully for partial summary judgment dismissing, inter alia, the fraud claims.

The motion court properly declined to modify its prior ruling. To make a prima facie claim of fraud, the complaint must allege misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact, falsity, sci-enter on the part of the wrongdoer, justifiable reliance and resulting injury *(see Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co.,*94 NY2d 43, 57 [1999]). Although a cause of action for fraud may be predicated on acts of concealment, there must first be proven a duty to disclose material information *(see Jana L. v West 129th St. Realty Corp.,*22 AD3d 274, 277 [2005]; *Kaufman v Cohen,*307 AD2d 113, 119-120 [2003]). When one party is under a duty to act for, or give advice for the benefit of, another on matters within the scope of their relationship, a fiduciary relationship is created *(see EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co.,*5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]). Here, plaintiff failed to demonstrate such a relationship requiring any duty of disclosure. A fiduciary relationship does not exist between parties engaged in an arm’s length business transaction *(see id.*at 19-20), which is normally the situation between landlord and tenant *(see Industrial Risk Insurers v Ernst,*224 AD2d 389, 390 [1996]; *Ja-Mo Assoc, v 56 Fulton St. Garage Corp.,*30 AD2d 287, 291-292 [1968]). Defendant was under no obligation to volunteer any information concerning contemplated future repairs to the elevator or any other systems in the building, and plaintiff has not claimed that defendant made any affirmative misrepresentations in that regard.

Review of the denial of plaintiffs request to stay discovery pending determination of this appeal has been rendered academic by this Court’s subsequent stay of both discovery and trial.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Saxe, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements of operations and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000 
        
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                     19,694
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                              84,811
<ALLOWANCES>                                5,036
<INVENTORY>                                 1,452
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          149,518
<PP&E>                                     33,242
<DEPRECIATION>                             23,150
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            360,616
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     206,186
<BONDS>                                   119,329
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                      185
<OTHER-SE>                                 34,916
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              360,616
<SALES>                                   113,158
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          113,158
<CGS>                                     101,339
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             118,918
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              214
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          2,214
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (8,188)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  226
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (8,414)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                              (8,414)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (.03)
        

</TABLE>
#### David Mirvish, Appellant, v Hanno D. Mott, Individually and as Executor of Yulla H. Lipchitz, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 26, 2012;

decided June 5, 2012

*876Motion for reargument denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements *[see*18 NY3d 510 (2012)].
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00105

- CV

IN THE ESTATE OF Billye M. HORMUTH

From the Probate Court No

. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- PC

- 4120 Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE

, JUSTICE ANGELINI , AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for further proceedings. It is ORDERED that the appellant, Barry Hormuth, recover his costs of this appeal from the appellee, Beverly Haddock as Independent Executrix of the Estate of Billye M. Hormuth, Deceased.

SIGNED September 10, 2014.

_____________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Certificate of Resolution

BAGDAD CHASE INC.
A Nevada Corporation

I, Earl J. Layton, Secretary of Bagdad Chase Inc., a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada, here by
certify that the following is a true and complete copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors of this company on
September 26, 1969, and that said Resolution is in full force and
effect and has not been rescinded, and that said Resolution is not in
conflict with the Charter and/or By-Laws of said company
RESOLVED: That the Nevada Agency and Trust Company, Reno, Nevada is
hereby authorized and directed to issue one (1) share of Bagdad Chase
Inc. stock for each four (4) shares of Bagdad Chase Mining Company or
its predecessors, said predecessors being Pacific Mines and Metals,
Inc., Bagdad Chase Consolidated Mines Company and Roosevelt Mines Inc.
Such stock issuance and exchange shall be in accordance with the
schedule submitted to Nevada Agency and Trust Company on July Z9, 1969
which shows the total shares yet to be issued to Bagdad Chase Mining
Company and predecessor stockholders to be approximately 85,492 shares.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have here unto set my hand and the seal of this
corporation on this 31st day of October 1969.

Earl J. Layton, Secretary Treasuerer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               148475
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                            7409
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     155884
<PP&E>                                                48415
<DEPRECIATION>                                       (33276)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       538862
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               1308406
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                               4836
<OTHER-SE>                                          (978026)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         538862
<SALES>                                                 589
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        589
<CGS>                                                    91
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            91
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     388023
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    16622
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (388766)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (388766)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (388766)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.002)



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11



                             COLUMBUS ENERGY CORP.
                Statement of Computation of Per Share Earnings
                                  (Unaudited)
                     (In Thousands Except Per Share Data)


                                                     Three Months Ended
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           February 28, 1998   February 28, 1997
                                           -----------------   -----------------
 
Diluted:
 Based on weighted average
 shares outstanding including
 the effect of common stock
 equivalents:

Weighted average shares
 outstanding:                                    4,258                4,361

Incremental shares attributable
 to dilutive stock options and
 warrants outstanding based on
 average market price during
 the period                                          4                  102
                                               -------               ------
   Total average common and
    common equivalent shares                     4,262                4,463
                                               =======               ======
      Net earnings (loss)                      $(1,457)              $1,143

Earnings per share                             $  (.34)              $  .26
                                               =======               ======




                                       28
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 21

                              NORMAN ENERGY CORP.

Divisions:

Arkla
Entex
Minnegasco
NorAm Trading & Transportation Group

Subsidiaries:

AER - Arkansas Gas Transit Company
  Subsidiaries: Blue Jay Gas Company
                Raven Gas Company
ALG Gas Supply Company
  Subsidiaries: ALG Gas Supply Company of Arkansas
                ALG Gas Supply Company of Kansas
                ALG Gas Supply Company of Louisiana
                ALG Gas Supply Company of Oklahoma
                ALG Gas Supply Company of Texas
Allied Materials Corporation
Arkansas Louisiana Finance Corporation
Arkla Chemical Corporation
Arkla Finance Corporation
Arkla Industries Inc.
Arkla Products Company
Entex Coal Company
Entex Gas Marketing Company
Entex NGV, Inc.
Entex Oil Company
Entex Oil & Gas Co.
Industrial Gas Supply Corporation
Intex, Inc.
Louisiana Unit Gas Transmission Company
Minnesota Intrastate Pipeline Company
Mississippi River Transmission Corporation
  Subsidiaries: MRT Energy Marketing Company
                MRT Services Company
National Furnace Company
NorAm Damage Prevention, Inc.
NorAm Energy Management, Inc.
NorAm Energy Services, Inc.
NorAm Field Services Corp.
NorAm Gas Processing Company
NorAm Gas Transmission Company
NorAm Hub Services Inc.
NorAm Latin America, Inc.
NorAm Trading and Transportation Group, Inc.
Unit Gas Transmission Company
United Gas, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from System 
Energy's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1997 and 
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000202584
<NAME> SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
<SUBSIDIARY>
   <NUMBER> 018
   <NAME> SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    2,480,174 
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     85,912
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         365,029 
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       500,916
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,432,031
<COMMON>                                       789,350
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0 
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             60,583
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 849,933
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,341,948
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   70,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     22,213
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                41,977
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,105,960
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                3,432,031
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      633,698
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            74,654
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     340,505
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     340,505
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        293,193
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              10,726
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 303,919
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       126,970
<NET-INCOME>                                   102,295
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  102,295
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       113,800
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      103,684
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         278,146
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
MAR2 3 2005

Stacy Dixon

Tribal Chainnan

745 Joaquin Street

Susanville, CA 96130

RE: Amended Tribal Gaming Ordinance of the Susanville fudianRancheria

Dear Chainnan Dixon:

This letter is in response to your request for the National fudian Gaming Commission (NIGC)

to review and approve amendments to the Amended Tribal Gaming Ordinance of the

Susanville fudian Rancheria (Gaming Ordinance), Resolution No. SU-BC-27-2004, approved

by the Susanville fudian Rancheria Tribal Business Council on December 15, 2004.

This letter constitUtessuch approval under the fudian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). It is

important to note that the Gaming Ordinance is approved for gaming only on fudian lands, as

defined in the IGRA, over which the Tribe hasjurisdiction.

Thank you for submitting the Gaming Ordinance for review and approval. The NIGC staff

and I look foFwafCl1OWbrkingwith you and the Susanville fudianRancheria on future gaming

Philip N. Hogen

Chainnan

NATIONALHEADQUARTERS1441 LSI. NW, Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 WWW.NIGC.GOV

REGIONALOFFICESPortland,OR;Sacramento,CA;Phoenix,AZ.:St. Paul,MN:Tulsa,OK
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,966
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,505
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,471)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
[990 NE2d 129, 967 NYS2d 891]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Isaac Diggins, Appellant.

Argued April 24, 2013;

decided May 30, 2013

*936APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Simpson Thacker & Bartlett LLP,*New York City *(Roy L. Reardon*of counsel), and *Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender (Rosemary Herbert*of counsel) for appellant.

*Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney,*New York City *(Sheryl Feldman*and *Alan Gadlin*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence granted and the case remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the indictment.

It is well established that a defendant may not, by his absence alone, “waive his right to effective assistance of counsel” *(People v Aiken,*45 NY2d 394, 398 [1978]). Although a defendant’s willful absence from trial surely hampers an attorney’s ability to represent the client adequately and must be taken into consideration, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that counsel’s lack of participation during the jury trial amounted to the ineffective assistance of counsel. On this record, including defendant’s cooperation with his attorney in formulating a defense before absconding, there was a “reasonable basis for an active defense” *(United States v Sanchez,*790 F2d 245, 254 [2d Cir 1986]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Pigott and Rivera concur; Judges Read and Smith dissent and vote to affirm, concluding that defendant’s trial counsel pursued a protest *937strategy *(see People v Diggins,*11 NY3d 518, 525 [2008]). Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.

Order reversed, defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence granted, and case remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings on the indictment, in a memorandum.
this court's 

### First Light IIopinion, petitioner did not satisfy its burden

under a rigorous NRCP 23 class-action analysis and that petitioner did not have standing to represent two or more homeowners in the homeowners' association for purposes of the litigation. Petitioner then filed the instant petition for writ of mandamus on October 29, 2012.

While petitioner's writ petition was pending, this court issued an opinion in which we reaffirmed and clarified 

### First Light II. Specifically, in 

### Beazer Homes Holding Corp. v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 128 Nev. , 291 P.3d 128 (2012), we reaffirmed that a district court, upon request, must conduct an NRCP 23 analysis to determine whether litigation by class action is the superior method of adjudicating homeowners' construction defect claims. 128 Nev. at , 291 P.3d at 135. We also clarified, however, that a failure to satisfy NRCP 23's class action prerequisites does not strip a homeowners' association of its ability to litigate on behalf of its members under NRS 116.3102(1)(d). 

### Id. at , 291 P.3d at 134-35.

We therefore conclude that partial relief is appropriate insofar as petitioner asks this court to order the district court to reconsider its order finding that petitioner does not have standing to represent two or more homeowners in this litigation in light of this court's opinion in 

### Beazer Homes. See Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) ("A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station . . . ."); 

### see NRS 34.160. Accordingly, we grant petitioner's writ petition in part and direct the clerk of this court to issue a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to grant rehearing

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I947A 2Douglas

Saitta J. and reconsider its June 

### 14, 2012, order in light of this court's opinion in Beazer Homes.

It is so ORDERED.'

cc: . Hon. Allan R. Earl, District Judge James R. Christensen Maddox, Isaacson & Cisneros, LLP Robert C. Maddox & Associates/Reno Wolfenzon Rolle/Las Vegas Koeller Nebeker Carlson & Haluck, LLP/Las Vegas McDonald Carano Wilson LLP/Las Vegas McDonald Carano Wilson LLP/Reno Eighth District Court Clerk

'We have considered petitioner's other arguments in this .writ proceeding and conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our extraordinary intervention is otherwise warranted, and thus, we deny the petition to the extent that it seeks additional relief.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL ELLIOTT YOUNG,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 482 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of January, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.