alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
97-309.

#### State v. Ware.

Hamilton App. No. C-950939. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
#### 315-321 Realty Co. Assoc., LLC, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents. Third Equity Owners Corp., Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[823 NYS2d 52]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saralee Evans, J.), entered November 10, 2004, and order, same court (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered May 18, 2005, which, in separate actions brought by property owners against the City of New York and its taxing authorities challenging tax assessments, granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaints, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Elaintiffs allege that as a result of a systemic bribery scheme involving New York City tax assessors and lasting many years, the properties belonging to the bribe-paying taxpayers were underassessed, causing all remaining properties in the city, including those belonging to plaintiffs, to be overassessed. The actions, insofar as based on fraud, negligence or other common-law theories, were properly dismissed for lack of standing. Elaintiffs’ allegations fail to show that the corruption caused them special damage different in kind and degree from the community generally *(see Matter of Colella v Board of Assessors of County of Nassau,*95 NY2d 401, 410 [2000]). To the extent that damages are calculable, all taxpayers in the city have suffered in the same manner as plaintiffs, by having to pay an incrementally higher tax than they would otherwise. Nor do plaintiffs have claims under 42 USC § 1983 on theories that their rights to due process and equal protection were violated. A local government may not be sued under section 1983 for a constitutional injury inflicted by employees or agents not acting pursuant to official municipal policy or custom *(see Monell v New York City Dept, of Social Servs.,*436 US 658, 694 [1978]; *Brown v State of New York,*89 NY2d 172, 185 [1996]). Even if, as plaintiffs allege in conclusory fashion, high-ranking city employ*510ees failed to take steps against the corruption after becoming aware of its existence, such knowledge would not show a city policy or custom to lower assessments in exchange for bribes. We have considered and rejected plaintiffs’ other arguments. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Sullivan, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.
Order filed, September 26, 2012

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________
NO. 14

- 12

- 00704

- CR

____________
CHRISTI ANN HERRERA , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 155th District Court

Waller County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 13,756



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due September 14, 2012

. See Tex. R. App.
P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The

record has not been filed with the court. Bec ause the reporter’s record has not been filed
timely, we issue the following order.

We order Katheryne Kyriell , the official court reporter, to file the record in this
appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

.
PER CURIAM
#### Julian Arrendal, Plaintiff, v Trizechahn Corporation et al., Defendants. Trizechahn Corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v Subway Real Estate Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent and Third Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Kashif D. Creary et al., Third Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

Submitted March 4, 2013;

decided April 25, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### In the Matter of David Burr, Appellant, v Timothy B. Howard, Sheriff of Erie County, Respondent.

Submitted April 23, 2012;

decided June 12, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### In the Matter of Lisa Harbatkin, Appellant, v New York City Department of Records and Information Services et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 25, 2011;

decided June 5, 2012

*875On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal granted.
EXHIBIT 23(i)

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

            We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-3, No. 333-26769) of Medicore, Inc. and in the related
Prospectus of our report dated March 22, 1999, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Medicore, Inc. as of and for the two years
ended December 31, 1999 included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 1999.

                                                     /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                                     ---------------------
                                                     Ernst & Young LLP


March 25, 2000
Miami, Florida
Honorable Fred Matt 

Chairman, Confederated S dish and Kootenai Tribes 

of the FIathead Reservation 

P.O. Box 278 

Pablo, Montana 59855 

Dear Chairman Matt: 

This letter responds to the request to review Amendment No. 5 to Tribal Gaming Ordinance 

92-D of the Confederatsd Salish and Root& Triba of the Flathead Reservation (Tribe), 

enacted by the Tribal Council on March 2,2004, and received at the National Tndian Gaming 

Commission on March 23,2004. Amendment No. 5 concerns the establishment of the Tribal 

letter constitutes approval of the amendment to the Gaming 

' document for review. If you have any questions or 

contact staff attorney Sandra Ashton at 202632-7003. 

Chairman 

Director, WGC Region IV, St. Paul, MN 

WATWWAL nEADQUmRS 1441 LSt. NW. Suite 9100. Washington. DC 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fa: 202.632.7W www.wm.cw 

EGONM OFF- Portland, OR Sauamem. CA; Phoenix. AZ: St. Paul. MN:Tula, OK 
Ordinance 92-D 

Amendment No. 5 

ORDINANCE 

OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 

CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES 

OF THE FLATHEAD RESERVATION 

BE IT ENACTED BY THE TRIBAL COUNCIL OF THE CONFEDERATED SALISH AND 

KOOTENAI TRIBES THAT AMENDMENT NO. 5 SHALL AMEND ORDINANCE 92-D AS 

FOLLOWS: . 

Section 2.01, Establishment of Commission, is rescinded in its entirety and 

replaced with a new Section 2.01 as follows: . -. ... . .. . . 

The CS&KT Tribal Gaming Commission shall consist of five (5) 

Commissioners. A Commissioner shall serve for three (3) years. All five (5) 

Commissioners must be enrolled tribal members who physically reside within the 

exterior boundaries of the Reservation during the three (3)-year term and must 

be at least twenty-one (21) years of age. Vacancies on the Commission shall be 

filled within thirty (30) days by nominations and a majority vote of the Tribal 

Council. On an annual basis the Commission shall select a chairperson 'from its 

membership by majority vote. The chairperson shall have the ability to appoint 

an acting chairperson from the remaining membership of the Commission in the 

event that the chairperson will be absent from the reservation for more than 

)r forty-eig ht (48) hours. 

CERTIFICATION 

The foregoing Amendment No. 5 to Ordinance 92-0 was adopted by the Tribal Council 

on'March 2, 2004, with a vote of 8 for; 0 opposed; and 1 not voting, pursuant to 

authority vested in it by Article VI, Section 1 (i), (n) and (u) of the Tribes' Constitution 

and Bylaws; said Constitution adopted and approved under Section 16 of the Act of 

June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984), as amended. 

CS & KT TRIBAL 

GAMING COMMISION
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.d.



                     AMENDMENT TO BANKAMERICA CORPORATION
                       SENIOR MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN

The BankAmerica Corporation Senior Management Incentive Plan ("SMIP"), as
adopted effective January 1, 1994, is amended as follows, effective January 1,
1996:

     1. Section 5.1 of the SMIP is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

     "5.1  The Committee shall allocate a percentage of the Incentive Award Pool
to each Executive Officer who is a Participant for the Plan Year.  The
allocation shall be made not later than 90 days after the commencement of the
Plan Year.  No Participant may be allocated more than 10 percent of the
Incentive Award Pool.  An Executive Officer who becomes a Participant after the
date the Committee has allocated percentages of the Incentive Award Pool for the
Plan Year shall have an allocation of 2 percent of the Incentive Award Pool. No
incentive award shall exceed the Participant's allocated percentage of the
Incentive Award Pool."

     2. Section 6.1 of the SMIP is deleted.  Sections 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 are
renumbered 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3, respectively.

     3. The first sentence of Section 6.1, as renumbered, shall be amended to
read as follows:

     "6.1  After the end of the Plan Year, the performance of each Senior
Officer who is a Participant shall be assessed by the CEO who shall make an
award recommendation to the Committee for the Participant."

4123405
#### Vistra Trust Company (Jersey) Limited, as Trustee of the Alsam, Colleen and Logany Settlements, et al., Respondents, v Marco Stoffel et al., Appellants.

Submitted March 21, 2011;

decided May 10, 2011

On the Court’s own motion, appeal, insofar as taken from the Appellate Division order denying reargument or, in the alterna*892tive, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; appeal otherwise dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying reargument or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied. Motions for poor person relief and a stay dismissed as academic.
#### Ana Lawson, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 4, 2012;

decided June 28, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal from the Supreme Court judgment entered upon the Appellate Division order dismissed upon the ground that the judgment is not the final appealable paper from which leave to appeal may be sought (see CPLR 5611).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1999, AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS
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-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         325,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   79,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       7,819,200
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,137,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,689,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          930,300
<BONDS>                                      1,450,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,689,700
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               745,100
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  769,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               102,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                17,600
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (159,800)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (159,800)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (159,800)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary 

# AGENCY:

Defense Acquisition University, DoD. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The next meeting of the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) Board of Visitors (BoV) will be held at Defense Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, VA. The purpose of this meeting is to report back to the BoV on continuing items of interest. 

# DATES:

January 28, 2009 from 0900-1500. 

# ADDRESSES:

Defense Acquisition University, Bldg. 226, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Christen Goulding at 703-805-5134. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is open to the public; however, because of space limitations, allocation of seating will be made on a first-come, first served basis. Persons desiring to attend the meeting should call Ms. Christen Goulding at 703-805-5134. 

Dated: January 14, 2009. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

 [FR Doc. E9-1407 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
#### Ronald Fields, Appellant, v Lucille Fields, Respondent.

Submitted July 19, 2010;

decided September 14, 2010

Motion for reargument denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements *[see 15*NY3d 158 (2010)].
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from BGE's
December 31, 1996 Interim Consolidated Income Statement, Balance Sheet and
Statement of Cash Flows and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    5,582,350
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                  1,473,165
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         902,198
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       593,257
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,550,970
<COMMON>                                     1,429,942
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          1,419,065
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               2,857,113
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          134,500
<PREFERRED>                                    210,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         2,758,769
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 333,185
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  197,772
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                       83,000
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,976,631
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                8,550,970
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    3,153,247
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           166,333
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   2,483,782
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   2,650,115
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        503,132
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               6,130
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 509,262
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       198,438
<NET-INCOME>                                   310,824
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     38,536
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  272,288
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       233,109
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      217,622
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         701,947
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.85
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 21  List of Subsidiaries

     The subsidiaries of Barnwell Industries, Inc., at September 30, 1996 were:


                                             Percentage    Jurisdiction of
Name of Subsidiary                          of Ownership    Incorporation
------------------                          ------------   ---------------

Barnwell of Canada, Limited                      100%      Delaware
Barnwell Hawaiian Properties, Inc.               100%      Delaware
Water Resources International, Inc.              100%      Delaware
Barnwell Management Co., Inc.                    100%      Delaware
Barnwell Shallow Oil, Inc.                       100%      Delaware
Barnwell Geothermal Corporation                  100%      Delaware
Barnwell Mining Co.                              100%      Delaware
Barnwell Overseas, Inc.                          100%      Delaware
Victoria Properties, Inc.                        100%      Delaware
Barnwell Israel, Ltd.                            100%      Israel
Barnwell Oil & Gas, Ltd.                         100%      Israel
Bill Robbins Drilling, Ltd.                      100%      Alberta, Canada
Dartmouth Petroleum, Ltd.                        100%      Alberta, Canada
Gypsy Petroleums Ltd.                            100%      Alberta, Canada
J.H. Wilson Associates, Ltd.                     100%      Alberta, Canada
Salcona Gas, Ltd.                                100%      Alberta, Canada
Barnwell Investment Corporation                  100%      Hawaii
Barnwell Kona Corporation                        100%      Hawaii
Barnwell Financial Corporation                   100%      Delaware
NDTX, Inc.                                       100%      Delaware
WRI Properties, Inc.                             100%      Hawaii
#### Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Bauman 34th Street, LLC, et al., Appellants, v Coach, Inc., Defendant, and Gateway Enterprises, Inc., Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 873]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered July 17, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint to add a new defendant, and granted defendant Gateway Enterprises, Inc.’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny Gateway’s cross motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Given the numerous statements and evidentiary items plaintiff received that indicated nonparty LJG performed work on the job in question, plaintiffs failure to make diligent inquiry into LJG’s role precludes the application of the relation back doctrine here *(Tucker v Lorieo,*291 AD2d 261, 262 [1st Dept 2002]). Further, plaintiff failed to establish that defendant Gateway would be vicariously liable for any acts by LJG. Thus, notwithstanding some overlap of ownership and officers, there was no unity of interest between Gateway and LJG *(Mercer v 203 E. 72nd St. Corp.,*300 AD2d 105, 106 [1st Dept 2002]). However, the statements by Gateway that it was the contractor on the job, coupled with other evidence of its role on the job and the fact that it may have supervised the work in question, precludes the grant of summary judgment in its favor. Concur— Tom, J.E, Friedman, Renwick, Feinman and Clark, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2012 NY Slip Op 31862(U).]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-1999
<CASH>                                         105,330
<SECURITIES>                                    44,252
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,359
<ALLOWANCES>                                       394
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               153,169
<PP&E>                                          40,592
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,102
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 215,507
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,553
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           611
<OTHER-SE>                                     164,343
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   215,507
<SALES>                                         69,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                73,016
<CGS>                                           47,481
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,113
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (7,983)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (27,114)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (27,114)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (27,114)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.47)



</TABLE>