alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Shi Pei Fang, Respondent, v Heng Sang Realty Corporation, Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[822 NYS2d 462]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hollie, J.), dated January 27, 2005, which, upon a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff, inter alia, the principal sums of $750,000 for past pain and suffering and $1,250,000 for future pain and suffering, and upon an order of the same court dated June 6, 2003, granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was, in effect, for a new trial on damages unless the plaintiff stipulated to reduce the verdict for damages for past *905pain and suffering to the principal sum of $300,000 and for future pain and suffering to the principal sum of $750,000, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“Whether or not expert testimony is admissible on a particular point is a mixed question of law and fact addressed primarily to the discretion of the trial court [and, a]s a general rule, the expert should be permitted to offer an opinion on an issue which involves professional or scientific knowledge or skill not within the range of ordinary training or intelligence” *(Selkowitz v County of Nassau,*45 NY2d 97, 101-102 [1978] [internal quotation marks deleted], quoting *Dougherty v Milliken,*163 NY 527, 533 [1900]). “The opinion testimony of an expert must be based on facts in the record or personally known to the witness” *(Quinn v Artcraft Constr.,*203 AD2d 444, 445 [1994], citing *Cassano v Hagstrom,*5 NY2d 643, 646 [1959]). “An expert may not reach a conclusion by assuming material facts not supported by the evidence, and may not guess or speculate in drawing a conclusion” *(Quinn v Artcraft Constr., supra).*Contrary to the contention of the defendant Heng Sang Realty Corporation (hereinafter Heng Sang), the testimony of the plaintiffs expert was based on facts in the record and his own analysis, not speculation.

“A jury verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence. Great deference is accorded to the fact-finding function of the jury, and determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses are for the factfinders, who had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses” *(Kinney v Taylor,*305 AD2d 466, 467 [2003] [citations omitted]; *see Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129, 134 [1985]). In the instant case, the jury’s verdict regarding liability was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Under the circumstances of this case, the damages awarded to the plaintiff, as reduced by the Supreme Court and upon stipulation of the plaintiff, did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation *(see*CPLR 5501 [c]; *Keefe v E & D Specialty Stands,*272 AD2d 949 [2000]; *Van Deusen v Norton Co.,*204 AD2d 867, 870-871 [1994]; *Villa v City of New York,*148 AD2d 699 [1989]). Crane, J.E, Ritter, Rivera and Lunn, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13903]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,791]


Commercial Vehicle Group/Trim Systems, Dublin, VA; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on April 14, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Commercial Vehicle 
Group/Trim Systems, Dublin, Virginia. The workers at the subject 
facility produce truck interiors.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 20th day of May 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13903 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
American Precision Industries Inc. on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-31315, 33-61734,
33-71839, and 333-56091) of our reports dated February 10, 1999, on our audits
of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of
American Precision Industries Inc. as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and for
each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1998, which reports are
included on pages 19 and 47 of this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Buffalo, New York
March 25, 1999
Exhibit 10.15

ADDENDUM
NO. 2

THIS
ADDENDUM NO. 2 to that certain Option Agreement dated September 4, 2002 and as amended by
Addendum No. 1 dated January 3, 2003 (collectively the "Option Agreement"), by
and between Western Gold Resources, Inc. and Atlas Minerals, Inc., all rights thereunder
which were assigned to and assumed by Atlas Precious Metals Inc. by Addendum No. 1, is
made and entered into this 31st day of March, 2003. By executing below, the parties
hereto agree that the Option Agreement shall be amended as follows:

Item
1. Option Period is hereby amended to extend the term of the
Option to June 30, 2003, unless a lesser or greater term shall be agreed upon by
the parties.

Item
2.    Except as hereby amended by this Addendum No. 2 , all terms and provisions of the
Option Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, as written.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties herein have affixed their signatures on the day
and date first above written.

|Atlas Precious Metals, Inc.
a Nevada corporation/s/ Gerald E. Davis
Gerald E. Davis
Its: President | Western Gold Resources, Inc.,
a Florida corporation/s/ Harold R. Shipes
Harold R. Shipes
Its: President
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,878]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 4, 2009, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of BCF Industries, Altavista, Virginia.

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of May, 2009.

Elliott S. Kushner,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-13917 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donovan Miller, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 921]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated September 13, 1993 *(People v Miller,*196 AD2d 834 [1993]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, *Kings*County, rendered April 16, 1990.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see *Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, EJ., Florio, Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
#### SLG 625 Lessee, LLC, Appellant, v Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., Respondent.

[978 NYS2d 130]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J), entered July 18, 2012, which granted the petition seeking to vacate an arbitration award to the extent of extending petitioner landlord’s compliance period to 45 days from the date of service of the order with notice of entry, and otherwise confirmed the award, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Absent action taken by the arbitrator contrary to a provision in a parties’ arbitration agreement, or which could constitute action taken in violation of public policy, the arbitrator is accorded “unfettered discretion” in matters submitted to him or her by consent of the parties *(Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg],*46 NY2d 623, 630 [1979]). Here, the relevant lease provision determined a tenant’s share of the building’s escalating operat*542ing expenses; that provision was to be read in conjunction with an arbitration provision governing potential disputes arising from the landlord’s allocation of increased annual building expenses to the tenant. Specifically, the arbitration provision stated, “The arbitrator conducting any arbitration shall be bound by the provisions of this lease and shall not have the power to add to, subtract from, or otherwise modify such provisions. Landlord and Tenant agree to sign all documents and to do all other things necessary to submit any such matter to arbitration further and agree to, and hereby do, waive any and all rights they or either of them may at any time have to revoke their agreement hereunder to submit to arbitration and to abide by the decision rendered hereunder.” Thus, the arbitration provision authorized the arbitrator to enforce the broad discovery allowed the tenant — namely, the landlord’s operating books and records that were relevant to the tenant’s challenge to specified annual operating statements. Such an interpretative finding by the arbitrator will not be disturbed *(see Matter of Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v Chesley, 7*AD3d 368 [1st Dept 2004]).

The aforementioned lease provisions did not contain any language that would preclude the arbitrator from including a provision in the award that would resolve escalating expense issues against the landlord where the landlord failed to comply with the specified discovery outlined in the award. “An arbitrator’s paramount responsibility is to reach an equitable result, and the courts will not assume the role of overseers to mold the award to conform to their sense of justice” *(Sprinzen*at 629). The arbitrator, in view of the landlord’s stonewalling of discovery, fashioned an award to ensure the landlord’s compliance with the award’s discovery directives. The arbitrator’s award rationally placed the ultimate burden upon the landlord to explain any failure on its part to produce relevant documents or information relative to its operation of its property. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.01
                                       
                                       
                                       
                     OAK TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
            STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                  (UNAUDITED)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Three Months Ended               Six Months Ended
                                                               December 31,                   December 31,
                                                        --------------------------    --------------------------
                                                           1996            1995          1996            1995
                                                        ----------     -----------    ----------     -----------
<S>                                                    <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Statement of operations data:
 Net income...........................................  $  13,188      $  18,217      $  11,535      $  31,450
                                                        ----------     -----------    ----------     -----------
                                                        ----------     -----------    ----------     -----------

Weighted average number of common and
 dilutive common equivalent shares used
 in computations:
  Common stock........................................     40,386         38,962         40,310         38,682
  Stock options and other common stock equivalents....      2,315          3,732          2,089          3,998
                                                        ----------     -----------    ----------     -----------
Shares used in computing net income per share (1).....     42,701         42,694         42,399         42,680
                                                        ----------     -----------    ----------     -----------
                                                        ----------     -----------    ----------     -----------
Net income per share (2)..............................  $    0.31      $    0.43      $    0.27      $    0.74
                                                        ----------     -----------    ----------     -----------
                                                        ----------     -----------    ----------     -----------
</TABLE>


(1)  Shares used in computing net income per share for prior periods have 
been restated to reflect the impact of a two for one stock split approved by 
the Company's shareholders and effective as of March 28, 1996.

(2) The difference between the primary and fully diluted shares used in 
computing net income per share is not material.
97-418.

#### State v. Crump.

Hamilton App. No. C-960171. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
Exhibit 31(o)

CERTIFICATIONS

 
I, Theodore H. Bunting, Jr., certify that:  
1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of System Energy Resources, 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 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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)  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;   
c) 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   
d) 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 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 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/ Theodore H. Bunting, Jr.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21


                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                        ------------------------------


                  API Heat Transfer Inc. (New York)
                               API Airtech Inc. (New York)
                           API Basco Inc. (New York)
                           API Ketema Inc. (Texas)
                           API Schmidt-Bretten GmbH (Germany)
                               Schmidt -Bretten GmbH (Germany)



                  API Motion Inc.
                           API Controls Inc. (New York)
                           API Deltran Inc. (New York)
                               API Deltran (St. Kitts) Ltd.
                           API Gettys Inc. (Wisconsin)
                           Harowe Servo Controls Inc. (Delaware)
                               Harowe Servo Controls (St. Kitts) Ltd.



                  API Electronic Components Inc. (New York)
                           API Delevan Inc. (New York)
                           API SMD Inc. (New York)


                                       48
96-1828.

#### Justice v. Hurley.

Franklin App. No. 95APD07-918. On motion to strike appendix to appellee brief, related argument and cases cited, and statement made at oral argument. Motion denied.

Lundberg Stratton, J., not participating.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     The schedule contains financial information extracted from the
     financial statements contained in the Registrant's Quarterly Report on
     Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 1999, and is qualified in its
     entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               8,667
<SECURITIES>                                        11,276
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    20,393
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      20,393
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               28,660
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               312
<OTHER-SE>                                         916,609
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        20,393
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        71
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     1,114
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (1,043)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (1,043)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (1,043)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (0)



</TABLE>
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 ARAMARK Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 3, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Joseph Neubauer, 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, based on 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: December 15, 2008



/s/    JOSEPH NEUBAUERJoseph NeubauerChairman and Chief Executive Officer