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

[852 NYS2d 837]

Defendant failed to establish at the hearing that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the basement area of the apartment building. Accordingly, he lacked standing to move to suppress the drugs and paraphernalia found in that basement *(see People v Rodriguez,*69 NY2d 159 [1987]; *People v Jose,*252 AD2d 401 [1998], *affd*94 NY2d 844 [1999]). There was no evidence that this basement was the residence of defendant or anyone else, or that it was anything but a drug factory. Defendant’s connection with the premises was either based solely on his illegal activity therein, or, as he claimed, was that of an occasional legitimate worker; neither was sufficient to establish standing. Concur—Lippman, P.J, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: August 6, 2015 519550 

________________________________

In the Matter of CURTIS OWENS,

Petitioner,

v

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting

Commissioner of Corrections

and Community Supervision,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: June 8, 2015

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose and Clark, JJ.

__________

Curtis Owens, Comstock, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H.

Schiff of counsel), for respondent. 

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County)

to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner

guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Determination confirmed. No opinion.

Lahtinen, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.
-2- 519550 

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without

costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.09

     DAVOX CORPORATION EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN

     The compensation arrangements between Davox Corporation (the "Company") and
each of its executive officers are based on the Company's Executive Compensation
Plan (the "Plan"), the terms of which are described herein.

     The Company's executive compensation program is administered by the three
member Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the "Compensation
Committee"). The three members of the Compensation Committee are non-employee
Directors. Pursuant to the authority delegated by the Board of Directors, the
Compensation Committee establishes each year the compensation of the Chief
Executive Officer, and together with the Chief Executive Officer, establishes
the compensation of the other executive officers of the Company pursuant to the
Plan.

     The Plan is designed to reward executive officers whose performance yields
improvement in corporate operating results, market share and shareholder value.
The ultimate goal of the Plan is to align the interests of management with those
of the stockholders. Compensation under the Plan is comprised of cash
compensation in the form of annual base salary, incentive compensation in the
form of performance-based cash bonuses, and long-term incentive compensation in
the form of stock options.

     In setting cash compensation levels for executive officers, the
Compensation Committee takes into account such factors as: (i) the Company's
past financial performance and future expectations, (ii) the general and
industry-specific business environment, and (iii) corporate and individual
performance goals. The base salaries are established at levels comparable to the
amounts paid to senior executives with comparable qualifications, experience and
responsibilities at other companies located in the northeastern United States of
similar size and engaged in a similar business to that of the Company.

     Incentive compensation in the form of performance-based bonuses for the
Company's executive officers is based upon management's success in meeting the
Company's financial and strategic goals as well as meeting individual
performance goals. Target levels of revenue and net income are set annually, and
bonuses are allocated to the executive officers contingent upon the achievement
of the target levels. In addition, based on the Company's exceeding both target
revenues and target net income, additional bonuses are awarded to executive
officers in the same proportion as bonuses are allocated under the Plan.

     Incentive compensation in the form of stock options is designed to provide
long term incentives to executive officers, to encourage the executive officers
to remain with the Company and to enable optionees to develop and maintain a
significant, long-term stock ownership position in the Company's Common Stock.
The Compensation Committee grants stock options to the Company's executive
officers in consideration of the strategic goals and direction of the Company.
#### McConnaughy v. Bennett. Same *v.*Hill. Same *v.*Morrow. Same *v.*Boyd. Same *v.*Sloane.

*(Circuit Court,*D. *Oregon.*

January 16, 1888.)

*Rufus Mallory*and *Charles B. Bellinger,*for plaintiff.

*George II. Williams, George H. Durham,*and *Lewis L. McArthur,*Hist. Atty., for defendants.

Deady, J.

These eases were heard with the foregoing and the circumstances of the entry, occupation, and character of the land are similar. The several tracts of land claimed by the defendants are all embraced within the sale of swamp lands by the state, as shown in the foregoing opinion, under which the plaintiff: claims. They each claim one quarter section except one, who claims a half section. The settlement and improvement of each was *456made in 1885, and in 1886 the hay, to recover which these several actions are brought, was cut and stacked on the land occupied by him. The land occupied by all the defendants is comprised in two tracts, not far distant, which lie on the margin and within the meandered line of Warner lake, near the .south boundary of the state.

. For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, there must be a finding for defendant in each ease.
@misc{1209261,
  author = {Karen Olsen},
  title = {Periodic Table of the Elements},
  year = {2022},
  month = {2022-09-30 04:09:00},
  publisher = {Special Publication (NIST SP), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  language = {en},
}
97-666.

#### State ex rel. Beery v. Schregardus.

In Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Upon consideration of the joint application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal be, and hereby is, granted.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Case number: 01-13-00103-CR

Style: O.D. Van Duren, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

Type of motion: Motion for rehearing

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

Acting for the Court

Before: Justices Higley and Bland. Justice Sharp was a member of the original 

panel but his term of office expired in the interim. The two remaining justices 

ruled on this motion. See Tex. R. App. P. 49.3(b). 

Date: January 13, 2015.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-12-00586-CR

MIGUEL MALDONADO

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 2 of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR-10-5416-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 16, 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                         299775
<SECURITIES>                   0               
<RECEIVABLES>                  8873312
<ALLOWANCES>                   202344
<INVENTORY>                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               0                
<PP&E>                         0                
<DEPRECIATION>                 0                
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 9140665
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          0               
<BONDS>                        0                
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          433131                
<PREFERRED>                    0                
<COMMON>                       0                
<OTHER-SE>                     8707534                
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   9140665                
<SALES>                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               871861                
<CGS>                          0                
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  136132                
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               0                
<LOSS-PROVISION>               180054                
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             43170                
<INCOME-PRETAX>                512505                
<INCOME-TAX>                   0                
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            512505                
<DISCONTINUED>                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                0                
<CHANGES>                      0                
<NET-INCOME>                   512505                
<EPS-PRIMARY>                  .00                
<EPS-DILUTED>                  .00
        


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Frank J. Povoski, Jr., Appellant, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.

Decided September 13, 2012

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

ANDRE STRUM,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 245 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1



INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S CONSENT




The Board of Directors and Stockholders
DecisionLink, Inc.

We hereby consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
Nos. 33-61479, 33-82330 and 333-31412 on Form S-8 of our report dated November
17, 2000, except for Note 18, as to which the date is November 29, 2000, related
to the consolidated balance sheet of DecisionLink, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of
September 30, 2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders' equity and comprehensive income and cash flows for the period then
ended, which report appears in the September 30, 2000 annual report on Form
10-KSB of DecisionLink, Inc.

/s/ GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP
New York, New York

December 29, 2000
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Green Irons Holdings Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended October 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I,
Sandy McDougall, 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:

(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 14th day of December, 2007.

/s/ SANDY MCDOUGALL
-------------------
Sandy McDougall
Chief Executive Officer
**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**AND
      PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with this Quarterly Report of United Nations Securities Association,
      Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30,
      2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), I, Lord Dr. Masaaki Ikawa, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of her knowledge,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
            Such
                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30,
                2006, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
                the period ending June 30, 2006, fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
                of
                United Nations Securities Associations,
                Inc.




Dated:
      August 15, 2006








Lord
      Dr.
      Masaaki Ikawa


Chief
      Executive Officer and


Principal
      Financial Officer
H. Res. 635 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 17, 2019. 

Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of the death of the Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, a 

Representative from the State of Maryland. 

Resolved, That a committee of such Members of the 

House as the Speaker may designate, together with such 

Members of the Senate as may be joined, be appointed to attend the funeral. 

Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House be 

authorized and directed to take such steps as may be necessary for carrying out the provisions of these resolutions and 

that the necessary expenses in connection therewith be paid 

out of applicable accounts of the House. 

Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions 

to the Senate and transmit a copy thereof to the family of 

the deceased. 
2 

•HRES 635 EH 

Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn as a further mark of respect to the memory of the deceased. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         173
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  32,908
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,504
<INVENTORY>                                    19,630
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               57,243
<PP&E>                                         119,581
<DEPRECIATION>                                 56,688
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 180,572
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          29,930
<BONDS>                                        114,933
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    2,000
<COMMON>                                       714
<OTHER-SE>                                     25,054
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   180,572
<SALES>                                        64,273
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               64,273
<CGS>                                          52,772
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  52,772
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7,480
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,290
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                771
<INCOME-TAX>                                   436
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            335
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   335
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.05
        


</TABLE>
ire: h-&Wj ^fcj-u.3 •chcJls

RECEIVED

A ..--i-to^k COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUL 20 2015

jL_A*M^\_(LJjj^__^

6£ -/k-e, r-cfi'4tW -f^*~ U)W* q^ If-^he^s-Gat-ALu h<^,.j

,V^ cl^Jte^ «fn-e ' -frdfttiJ C-&Oi5g. nusriybw'S

C*juA ^CtfyninA Aff^ls no- li)f{~ 19J 93j -03

^SiA-(LcLU>jch^

jko-^K uugu ,

^-

rn.r. 5kci^ ^t.6?xxxV,)<;,<W.^.7

fv^cc/-K uu. 5^ u^

3o<U>o -FT ^^337Y

B^ujL^c^jT^f^s-- 77 7^J-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,641,244
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         225,673
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            10,683,895
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  7,346,856
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     51,203,081
<ALLOWANCE>                                  (297,783)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              78,360,679
<DEPOSITS>                                  54,171,011
<SHORT-TERM>                                18,941,266
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,134,206
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,954
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,101,242
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              78,360,679
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,821,007
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              902,519
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,723,526
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,112,346
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,732,713
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          990,813
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  190,500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             399,282
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              4,915,349
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (895,516)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   (536,758)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (536,758)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.430)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.480)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.14
<LOANS-NON>                                    464,197
<LOANS-PAST>                                   289,719
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               317,185
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  224,659
<RECOVERIES>                                    14,757
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              297,783
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           297,783
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
[887 NYS2d 742]

#### Richard Denise, M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Irene Trapp, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

July 22, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Israel, Israel & Purdy, LLP,*Great. Neck *(<Jennifer Greenhalgh Howard*of counsel), for appellant. *Law Offices of Jones*

*14*Jones O’Connell LLP,*Brooklyn *(Agnes Neiger*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, dated May 7, 2007, reversed, without costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated.

Defendant New York City Transit Authority concedes that as a self-insurer, it is subject to the provisions of the No-Fault Law to the same extent as an insurer *(see*Insurance Law § 5103 [a]; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 321 [2]; Public Authorities Law § 1215; *Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth.,*67 NY2d 219 [1986]), and that actions to recover no-fault benefits are generally governed by a six-year statute of limitations *(see*CPLR 213 [2]; *Matter of Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn, v Glenwood Med., P.C.,*48 AD3d 319 [2008]). It argues, however, that while an injured claimant has six years to assert a no-fault claim against an insured owner, a claimant must assert an identical claim against a self-insurer within three years, since the liability of a self-insurer for the payment of no-fault benefits is derived strictly from statute. We disagree.

Defendant’s responsibility to provide no-fault coverage is mandatory and the obligation is not decreased merely because defendant is self-insured *(see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Shaw,*52 NY2d 818, 820 [1980]). As in the case of an uninsured motorist claim *(see Matter of ELRAC, Inc. v Suero,*38 AD3d 544 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 811 [2007]), the right to obtain no-fault coverage, from an injured claimant’s perspective, “is no less than the corresponding right under a policy issued by an insurer” *(id.*at 545 [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see also Spring World Acupuncture, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth.,*24 Misc 3d 39 [2009]). The *Suero*court held that although a claim for uninsured motorist benefits against a self-insurer is statutorily mandated, such a claim remains contractual in nature and thus, is subject to a six-year statute of limitations. Since we find no basis in law or compelling reasons of policy to distinguish between the right to uninsured motorist benefits and the right to no-fault benefits, we hold that a claim for no-fault benefits against a self-insurer, such as defendant here, is governed by a six-year statute of limitations.

McKeon, PJ., and Heitler, J., concur.
#### In the Matter of Andre L., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Yolanda L., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 387]

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Carol A. Stokinger, J.), entered on or about January 4, 2010, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent mother neglected her son by failing to provide him with adequate and appropriate education, placed the child with petitioner agency until the next permanency hearing, scheduled for June 21, 2010, unanimously affirmed, without costs, insofar as it brings up for review the fact-finding determination, and the appeal therefrom otherwise dismissed as moot. Order of fact-finding, same court and Judge, entered on or about December 8, 2009, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A preponderance of the evidence established that respondent failed to exercise even a “minimum degree of care” in providing her son with an education *(see*Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]; *Matter of Baum,*61 AD2d 123,130-131 [2d Dept 1978], *lv denied*44 NY2d 647 [1978]). Concur — Friedman, J.P, Acosta, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.
I*

c

C

ExwnW

TocWs X)tit VAo^ovg-to p^-^xvd T\Twe. ~>1\^ \Q\ 30\^>

c-^Aims

SL*.

+Eba^

W^,.

^apmvs va-Wy^

^id^^5\av.„

-\o s?aA; MK\S \fcVter as^°y -for cxvn

FILED IN

JUL 2 1 2015

^J3J4^ ^*6&^

-rnjef^costa, Gierlc RzcBvnm

•XWR^Q^mmAL APPEALS

lOTT^ZDUr

-AteMcostarGteffr