alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### National Abatement Corp. et al., Appellants, v National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., Respondent.

[824 NYS2d 230]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered on or about April 24, 2006, which, upon reargument, granted defendant insurer’s motion for summary judgment and declared that plaintiffs are not entitled to defense and indemnification in an underlying personal injury action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no need to engage in conflicts of laws analysis absent a conflict between the laws of New York and Pennsylvania with respect to the applicability of basic tenets of contract interpretation in determining whether plaintiffs are covered under the additional insured endorsement *(see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Stolarz—New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co.],*81 NY2d 219, 223 [1993]; *see e.g. Ehrlich v Hambrecht,*19 AD3d 259 [2005]). The party claiming insurance coverage bears the burden of proving entitlement *(Kidalso Gas Corp. v Lancer Ins. Co.,*21 AD3d 779, 780-*571781 [2005]), and is not entitled to coverage if not named as an insured or an additional insured on the face of the policy *CTribeca Broadway Assoc, v Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co.,*5 AD3d 198, 200 [2004]). Here, there is additional insured coverage only if such coverage is required by a “written contract,” but none existed at the time of the accident underlying this personal injury action. Contrary to plaintiffs’ understanding, the fact that an unsigned contract may be enforceable if there is objective evidence the parties intended to be bound or the eventual writing was intended to be valid retroactively *(see e.g. God’s Battalion of Prayer Pentecostal Church, Inc. v Miele Assoc., LLP,*6 NY3d 371, 374 [2006]; *Hartman v Baker,*766 A2d 347, 351, 2000 PA Super 140, 11 6-11 [2000], *petition to appeal denied*564 Pa 712, 764 A2d 1070 [2000]) has no bearing on whether there is a “written contract” pursuant to the policy endorsement. Interpreting the insurance contract under the same principles as any ordinary business contract, we find the subject provision unambiguous, and reasonably susceptible to only one meaning *(see Greenfield v Philles Records,*98 NY2d 562, 569-570 [2002]), leaving no occasion to consider parol evidence of the parties’ course of conduct *(239 E. 79th Owners Corp. v Lamb 79 & 2 Corp.,*30 AD3d 167 [2006]).

An additional insured endorsement is an addition, rather than a limitation, of coverage *(Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v Hartford Ins. Co.,*203 AD2d 83, 84 [1994]). If the claim falls outside the policy’s coverage, as does plaintiffs’ herein, the insurer is not required to disclaim *(Zappone v Home Ins. Co.,*55 NY2d 131 [1982]; *National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v State Ins. Fund,*18 AD3d 202, 204 [2005]).

In view of the foregoing, we need not address plaintiffs’ other contentions, which are, in any event, unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P, Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Jerry M. Kennelly, 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 Riverbed Technology, Inc. on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in such Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Riverbed Technology, Inc.



|                  |  |  |  |                                      
|----------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 5, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Jerry M. Kennelly                
|                  |  |  |  | Jerry M. Kennelly                    
|                  |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                  |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)        

I, Randy S. Gottfried, 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 Riverbed Technology, Inc. on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in such Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Riverbed Technology, Inc.



|                  |  |  |  |                                             
|----------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------
|Date: May 5, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Randy S. Gottfried                      
|                  |  |  |  | Randy S. Gottfried                          
|                  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                  |  |  |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 has been provided to Riverbed Technology, Inc. and will be retained by Riverbed Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q/A to
which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q/A), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                                   0
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 4300
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           1022200
<OTHER-SE>                                           (4300)
<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>                                        (22250)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.02)
        


</TABLE>
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY SERVICES 
Filed May 28, 1998 

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

EMPIRE BANC CORPORATION
CID #070-234
Resolutions Adopted by the Board of Directors on April 23, 1998 
Pursuant to Section 301a of the Michigan Business Corporation Act Relating
to Deleting Reference to Par Value

WHEREAS, this Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interest of this
Corporation and its shareholders to amend the Articles of Incorporation to
Delete all reference to par value.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 301a of the Michigan
Business Corporation Act, Article III (and any series designation made with
respect thereto) of the Articles of Incorporation of this Corporation be and
hereby is amended to delete all reference to par value.

CERTIFICATE
The undersigned, William T. Fitzgerald, Jr. hereby certifies that he is a Vice-
President and the Secretary of Empire Banc Corporation, a Michigan corporation,
and the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Preamble and Resolution duly
adopted at a meeting of the Board of Directors of said Corporation and held
April 23, 1998, at which a quorum was present and acting throughout and that
such Preamble and Resolution are in full force and effect and have not been
amended, rescinded or repealed as of the date hereof.

Dated:  May 26, 1998                         /s/ William T. Fitzgerald, Jr.
                                             ------------------------------
                                             William T. Fitzgerald, Jr.
                                             Vice-President and Secretary
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
 
                             BAY STATE GAS COMPANY
 
               STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION IN SUPPORT OF RATIO OF
                           EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               1998       1997       1996       1995      1994
                                              -------    -------    -------    -------   -------
<S>                                           <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>       <C>
Earnings:
  Net income................................  $ 6,634    $26,062    $27,072    $23,128   $24,485
  Adjustments:
     Income taxes...........................    9,610     16,979     16,953     14,575    15,642
     Fixed charges (as below)...............   24,558     21,192     21,522     19,365    17,359
                                              -------    -------    -------    -------   -------
          Total adjusted earnings...........  $40,802    $64,233    $65,547    $57,068   $57,486
                                              =======    =======    =======    =======   =======
Fixed charges:
  Total interest expense....................  $18,662    $18,255    $17,345    $17,300   $15,305
  Interest component of rents...............    5,896      2,937      4,177      2,065     2,054
                                              -------    -------    -------    -------   -------
          Total fixed charges...............  $24,558    $21,192    $21,522    $19,365   $17,359
                                              =======    =======    =======    =======   =======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges..........     1.66       3.03       3.05       2.95      3.31
                                              =======    =======    =======    =======   =======
</TABLE>
 
                                       55
Ashley Yount

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Hello,

Samarripa, Khristel <khristel.samarripa@texasattorneygeneral.gov>

Monday, July 13, 2015 4:41 PM

Ashley Yount

Katrina McClenny; Cathy Lusk; Samarripa, Khristel

APPEAL RECORD REQUEST

I need to request the following appeal record, pleasftfcc'D IN COURT OF AP>-

12th Court of Appeals Disv<ct

Michealle Boston

12-13-00148-CR

Thank you

Khristel L Samarripa

Admin. Asst. II

Texas Attorney Generals Office

Criminal Appeals Division

Ph. (512) 475-2074

Fax (512) 936-1280
Exhibit 10.2 Q3 FY2013






        


                
TWENTY- FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This Twenty-Fourth Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of March 1, 2013 by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Employer") and Brud Drachman ("Executive").


Recitals


		
	A)
	On January 11, 2000 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive.




		
	B)
	Said Employment Agreement has been amended on twenty-three prior occasions;




		
	C)
	Employer and Executive now desire to further amend the Employment Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow:




Agreement


		
	1.
	Section 3.1 of the Agreement which provides: 




3.1    Term. The term of Executive's employment hereunder shall commence on March 31, 2000 and shall continue until March 31, 2013 unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided.




is hereby amended, effective March 1, 2013, to provide as follows:




		
	1.
	Term.  The term of Executive's employment hereunder shall commence on March 31, 2000 and shall continue until March 31, 2014 unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided.




		
	2.
	All other terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain unaltered and fully effective.






Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above.






EXECUTIVE                            EMPLOYER
PriceSmart, INC.


Brud Drachman                    By: ____________________


______________________                Name: Jose Luis Laparte    


Its: CEO & President
**EXHIBIT 10 (l)**

**THE BLACK & DECKEREXECUTIVE ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN**

1.     Purpose 

        Thepurpose of The Black & Decker Corporation Executive Annual Incentive Plan is to make apart of the annual compensation of the Corporation’s officers dependent on theCorporation’s performance and to provide rewards for performance as a competitiveincentive to their efforts on the Corporation’s behalf, and thus to enhance andreinforce the Corporation’s ability to achieve its business goals. It is theintention of the Board of Directors of the Corporation in adopting the Plan that amountspaid to Participants under the Plan be “qualified performance-basedcompensation” within the meaning of Section 162(m) of the Code and the Section 162(m)Regulations. 

2.     Definitions 

        Wheneverused for purposes of the Plan, the following terms have the meanings defined below, andwhen the defined meaning is intended, the term is capitalized: 

        (a)                 “Award” means a grant to a Participant of incentive compensation under          the Plan. 

        (b)                 “CEO” means the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation. 

        (c)                 “Code” means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended from time          to time. 

        (d)                 “Committee” means the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors          of the Corporation. All members of the Committee shall be members of the Board          of Directors of the Corporation who are not eligible to participate in the Plan          and who are (i) disinterested persons as defined in Rule 16b-3 adopted pursuant          to the Exchange Act, (ii) outside directors as defined in the Section 162(m)          Regulations, and (iii) independent directors as defined in the New York Stock          Exchange’s corporate governance rules and the Corporation’s Corporate          Governance Policies and Procedures Statement. 

        (e)                 “Corporation” means The Black & Decker Corporation. 

        (f)                 “Maximum Participant Award” means, with respect to a particular          Participant, the maximum Award payable to such Participant as determined in          accordance with Section 5(d) of the Plan. 

        (g)                 “Participant” means an employee who is an officer of the Corporation          who has been designated to participate in the Plan. 

----
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





The undersigned, Eugene Malobrodsky, the Chief Executive Officer of INTELLIGENT BUYING. INC.  (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1. The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2011 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 10th day of November 2011.





/s/Eugene MalobrodskyEugene MalobrodskyPrincipal Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Intelligent Buying, Inc. and will be retained by Intelligent Buying, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of the City of Rochester for a Warrant to Inspect 187 Clifton Street, City of Rochester, County of Monroe, State of New York. Florine Nelson et al., Appellants, v City of Rochester, Respondent.

Submitted May 14, 2012;

decided June 27, 2012

On 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 denied.
Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

March 21, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128560(93) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

H.A. Robert P. Young, Jr. SMITH LUMBER & HARDWARE CO., Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff/Counter- Justices Defendant/Appellee, 

v SC: 128560 

 COA: 238521 

Oakland CC: 1999-015436-CZ 

JOHN DECINA,

Defendant/CrossDefendant/Appellant, 

and 

JOHN DECINA DEVELOPMENT CO., 

Third Party Defendant/CrossDefendant/Counter-Plaintiff/

Appellant, 

and 

LINAS P. GOBIS and LYDIA K. GOBIS, 

Defendants/Cross-Plaintiffs/

Cross-Defendants/Counter-

 Defendants/Appellees, 

and 

WILLIAM GARDELLA d/b/a WILLIAMS 

GLASS CO., 

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/

Cross/Plaintiff/ Third Party

Plaintiff/Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 20, 

2007 order is considered, and it is GRANTED. On reconsideration, we REMAND this 

case to the Oakland Circuit Court to determine whether plaintiff H.A. Smith Lumber & 

Hardware Company can recover attorney fees under its contract with defendant John 
 _________________________________________ 

 

 

 

2 

Decina. Although attorney fees were not recoverable under the Construction Lien Act 

(CLA), MCL 570.1101 et seq., as held in our decision in this case, 480 Mich 987 (2007), 

they may be recoverable under the contract between the parties. 

KELLY, J., concurs and dissents and states as follows: 

I concur in the decision to grant the motion for reconsideration. But I dissent from 

the decision to remand the case to the trial court to consider whether plaintiff H.A. Smith 

Lumber & Hardware Company can recover attorney fees. I would reinstate the award of 

attorney fees for the reasons stated in Justice Cavanagh’s dissenting statement in this 

case, 480 Mich 987, 988 (2007).

 CAVANAGH, J., joins the statement of KELLY, J. 

WEAVER, J., would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would grant 

leave to appeal. 

s0318 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 21, 2008 

Clerk
#### VENN-SEVERIN MACHINE CO. v. JOHN KISS SONS TEXTILE MILLS, Inc.

No. 152.

District Court, D. New Jersey.

May 22, 1941.

Edward V. Ryan, of Jersey City, N. J., for plaintiff.

Aquila N. Venino, of Newark, N. J., for defendant.

*5WALKER, District Judge.

A conference1 has been held and the' court in order to settle the terms of an order finds that:

1. The defendant admits executing the notes upon which the plaintiff sues.

- 2. The original contracts are to be subpoenaed because the defendant contends that the photostatic copies show certain conditions it wishes to inquire into.

3. The parties are to check the correspondence and to agree wherever possible as to the admissibility thereof.

4. The parties have stipulated that if the law of the State of Illinois is applicable, it is the same as the law of the State of New Jersey.

5. Plaintiff objects to the counterclaim of the defendant because it sets up equitable and legal fraud and alleged breach of an implied warranty and argues that the defendant may seek either rescission by equitable action or damages in a legal action, but, he may not seek both remedies because the former is in derogation of and seeks to avoid the contract, while the latter remedy is available only on the premise that there exists a present and continuing contract which the defendant, elects to recognize as such; therefore, the defendant should be required to make an election.

In answering this objection, the court holds, that the defendant will be required to make its election, but it can do so during the trial.2 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are based on the theory of a rather general form of pleading.3 They employ simplicity, conciseness and directness and technical forms are eschewed.4 The requirement of consistency is done away with and inconsistent claims are allowed.5 All refinements of pleadings arc subordinated to one aim: the achievement of substantial justice6, and courts are urgently charged to interpret pleadings in that spirit.7

The court is unable to ascertain the purpose served by the fifth and sixth counts of the counterclaim and it is suggested that the defendant may wish to withdraw them.

An order in accordance with the foregoing should be presented.

1

 Rule 16, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts of the United States, 28 U.S.C.A. following Section 723c.

2

 See Adams et al. v. Camden Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 121 N.J.L. 389, 2 A.2d 361.

3

 Dean, now Judge Clark, Proceedings, American Bar Association Institute, 1938.

4

 The defendant has not stated its counterclaim as simply, concisely and directly as it could.

5

 Rule 8(e), (1) (2), 28 U.S.C.A. following Section 723.C.

6

 Rule 8(f), 28 U.S.C.A. following Section 723c.

7

 Sierocinski v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 3 Cir., 103 F.2d 843. See, also, The Complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, X Ford-ham Law Review, 252.