alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[890 NYS2d 254]

#### Sella Properties, Appellant, v Paulette DeLeon, Doing Business as Best Buy Furniture’s, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

October 6, 2009

*86APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Law Office of Eliezer B. Kraus,*Brooklyn, for appellant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the order dated September 12, 2008 is modified by providing that landlord’s motion is granted to the extent of vacating so much of the August 4, 2008 order as, on the court’s own motion, dismissed the petition, and by further providing that the denial of landlord’s application for a default final judgment is without prejudice to renewal upon proper papers; as so modified, the order is affirmed without costs and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for all further proceedings.

In this commercial nonpayment summary proceeding, landlord served tenant with a notice of petition and petition, verified by its attorney, on June 23, 2008. Tenant failed to answer or appear. On July 29, 2008 landlord applied for a default final judgment in its favor. By order dated August 4, 2008, the Civil Court denied the application and sua sponte dismissed the petition, finding that landlord had failed to attach its rent demand to the petition. Landlord subsequently moved to, inter alia, vacate the prior order and enter a default final judgment in its favor, asserting that it had stated in its petition that rent had been demanded personally. By order dated September 12, 2008, the Civil Court denied the motion, noting that an oral rent *87demand is permissible pursuant to RPAPL 711 but apparently finding that the demand was not sufficiently alleged because the petition was verified by landlord’s attorney. By notice of appeal dated October 22, 2008, landlord appealed from the August 4, 2008 order, which we deem to be an appeal from the September 12, 2008 order *(see*CPLR 5512 [a]).

RPAPL 741 expressly allows a legal representative or attorney to verify a petition in a summary proceeding to recover real property. RPAPL 741 (4) requires the petition to state the facts upon which the special proceeding is based. As noted by the Civil Court, RPAPL 711 allows a landlord to maintain a nonpayment proceeding when “a demand for rent has been made,” an allegation contained in the petition. Accordingly, the Civil Court erred in sua sponte dismissing the petition, and further erred in declining to vacate the dismissal.

However, while a petition verified by an attorney is sufficient to satisfy RPAPL 741, the entry of a default final judgment must be supported by a petition or an affidavit sworn to. on personal knowledge *(see Matter of Brusco v Braun,*199 AD2d 27, 32 [1993], *affd*84 NY2d 674 [1994]; *Fairfield Presidential*Assoc. *v Samuel,*4 Misc 3d 1026[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51064[U] [2004]; *Bldg Mgt. Co. v Vision Quest of Flatbush,*1 Misc 3d 681 [2003]). Since there was no such petition or affidavit, the court should properly have declined to enter a default final judgment upon the motion papers before it without prejudice to renewal of the application upon proper papers.

Golia, J.P, Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jarvis Demoan Fisher, Appellant

No. 06-14-00231-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 283rd District Court of 

Dallas County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. F14-

53102-T). Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Jarvis Demoan Fisher, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 17, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Exhibit
      32


Section
      1350 Certifications





**STATEMENT
      FURNISHED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





The
      undersigned is the Financial Officer of Imperiali Inc.  This
      Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002.
      This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Imperiali
      Inc for the quarter ended May 31, 2007.





The
      undersigned certifies that such 10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
      information contained in such 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Imperiali Inc
      as
      of May 31, 2007.





This
      Certification is executed as of September 19, 2008.




/s
            Daniel
                ImperatoInterim
                  Non-Executive Chairman Emeritus





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      us, and will be retained by Imperiali Inc and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of Omari M., Appellant, v Amanda M., Respondent.

[978 NYS2d 9]

*493Order, Family Court, New York County (Tamara Schwartz, Ref.), entered on or about January 9, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, declined to grant the father’s petition for annual visitation with his children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to order once yearly visits to the father, who is incarcerated at a correctional facility in Washington State. The Family Court properly concluded that visitation was not in the best interests of the children at the present time, due primarily to the parties’ inability to identify or agree upon an appropriate person who was willing to accompany the children, currently four and five years of age, on the lengthy trip to Washington State *(Matter of Granger v Misercola,*21 NY3d 86, 90-91 [2013]; *Matter of Miller v Fedorka,*88 AD3d 1185, 1185-1186 [3d Dept 2011]).

Contrary to the father’s assertions, the Family Court properly concluded that his testimony did not establish that the paternal grandmother was a suitable guardian, as she had lived with the children only briefly when they were very young and had not spent time with them recently. An appropriate guardian is especially important where the visit would require days and not merely hours of travel *(compare Matter of Telfer v Pickard,*100 AD3d 1050, 1051 [3d Dept 2012]).

In allowing written correspondence with the children and requiring photos of the children to be sent to the father, the Family Court acknowledged that it was in the best interests of the children to maintain contact with him and was apparently open to allowing visitation should the parties be able to agree upon a suitable person to accompany the children. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.
UNITED STATES RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD - 1

Program

Letter

United States

Railroad Retirement Board

Office of Programs

Quality Reporting Service Center

Email: QRSC@rrb.gov

Phone: (312) 751-4992

 Fax: (312) 751-7123

Letter No. 2017-03 Date: April 3, 2017

CONTACT: Lavette Fargo PHONE: (312) 751-4617

 Policy and Systems 

 EMAIL: Lavette.Fargo@rrb.gov

TO: Medical Contact Officials and Administrative Officers

SUBJECT: Revised, Form G-251A, Railroad Job Information

This applies to Disability Applicants only.

Please share this notice with all individuals within your organization who are responsible 

for medical matters.

Effective April 3, 2017, the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) will introduce the Railroad Job 

Information Form G-251A that will ask covered employers to provide job information about 

applicants who apply for an occupational disability benefit under Section 2(a)(1)(iv) of the Railroad 

Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231a(a)(1)(iv)). 

Collection of job information from the employers will assist the disability examiner with making an 

accurate disability determination. The form has been revised to:

• streamline adjudication;

• be consistent with other forms and Social Security Administration procedure;

• include a standardized certification statement; and

• improve program integrity.

Attached is a copy of the revised Form G-251A, Railroad Job Information

https://www.rrb.gov/pdf/aandt/pl17-02_Attachment.pdf. 

The employer should return Form G-251A to the Disability Benefits Division. The certifying official 

should sign, date, and provide contact information.

The revised Form G-251A will be used in lieu of the previous Forms G-251a and G-251b. In 

addition, in order to obtain more accurate job descriptions from you, the RRB will no longer provide 

generic job descriptions based on the applicant’s stated job. 

If you have any questions regarding the revised Form G-251A, please contact the individual listed

on the top of this program letter. 
UNITED STATES RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD - 2

Attachment
@article{1207531,
  author = {Kyle Beloy},
  title = {Trap-induced ac Zeeman shift of the thorium-229 nuclear clock frequency},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-03-08 05:03:00},
  publisher = {Physical Review Letters},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=934770},
  language = {en},
}
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0004515

20-JUL-2015

07:54 AM
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Middle Kingdom Alliance Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q, for the three
month period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Fred A. Brasch, Chief Financial 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and result of operations of the Company for the period certified.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Fred A. Brasch     
|Fred A. Brasch         
|Chief Financial Officer

May 15, 2009
Exhibit 32.1


Certification of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








Neil Blosch, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, of Ultra Sun Corp. (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period June 30, 2011 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and


(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.





Dated:  August 15, 2011





By:  /s/ Neil Blosch


Principal Executive Officer


Principal Accounting Officer





* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Ultra Sun Corp. and will be retained by AirWare International Corp. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

MANDATE

TO THE 193RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas, on the 7th day of May, 2015, the 

cause on appeal to revise or reverse the judgment between

H. JONATHAN COOKE, INDIVIDUALLY 

AND ON BEHALF OF ESCROW 

PARTNERS DALLAS, L.P.; ESCROW 

PARTNERS DALLAS, GP, INC.; 

ESCROW PARTNERS HOUSTON, L.P.; 

ESCROW PARTNERS HOUSTON, GP, 

INC.; ESCROW PARTNERS AUSTIN, 

L.P.; ESCROW PARTNERS AUSTIN, GP, 

INC.; ESCROW PARTNERS SAN 

ANTONIO, L.P.; ESCROW PARTNERS 

SAN ANTONIO, GP, INC.; TITLE 

PARTNERS, L.L.P.; NORTH AMERICAN 

MANAGEMENT, L.L.P.; TJ PARTNERS I, 

LLC; AND TJ PARTNERS II, LLC, 

Appellant

No. 05-15-00441-CV V.

ROBERT C. KARLSENG; KARLSENG 

LAW FIRM, P.C.; ASHLEY BRIGHAM 

PATTEN; PATTEN & KARLSENG LAW 

FIRM, P.C.; JACQUES YVES LEBLANC; 

AND LEBLANC, PATTEN AND 

KARLSENG LAW FIRM, P.C. , Appellees

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 06-02873-L.

Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice Lang-Miers 

participating.

was determined; and this Court made its order in these words:

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
–2–

We ORDER appellees Robert C. Karlseng; Karlseng Law Firm, P.C.; Ashley 

Brigham Patten; Patten & Karlseng Law Firm, P.C.; Jacques Yves LeBlanc; and 

LeBlanc, Patten and Karlseng Law Firm, P.C. recover their costs, if any, of this appeal 

from appellant H. Jonathan Cooke, individually and on behalf of Escrow Partners Dallas, 

L.P.; Escrow Partners Dallas, GP, Inc.; Escrow Partners Houston, L.P.; Escrow Partners 

Houston, GP, Inc.; Escrow Partners Austin, L.P.; Escrow Partners Austin, GP, Inc.; 

Escrow Partners San Antonio, L.P.; Escrow Partners San Antonio, GP, Inc.; Title 

Partners, L.L.P.; North American Management, L.L.P.; TJ Partners I, LLC; and TJ 

Partners II, LLC.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of the Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth District of Texas, in this behalf, and have it duly obeyed and executed.

WITNESS the HON. CAROLYN WRIGHT, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals, with 

the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Dallas, this 17th day of July, 2015.

LISA MATZ, Clerk
Order entered July 16, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00561-CR

TONY GLENN BOYD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14-75804-R

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 10.02 8-2-13






Exhibit 10.02


Letter of extension for OG&E's credit agreement

Dated July 29, 2013



In accordance with Section 2.21 of OG&E's Credit Agreement dated December 13, 2011, Lenders holding Commitments aggregating $400 million have approved the extension of the Maturity Date (with respect to their Commitments only) for an additional year until December 13, 2017.
**Exhibit 32.3**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Minuteman International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe fiscal year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James A. Berg, ChiefAccounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that based on my knowledge: 

 

(1)               The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and 

 

(2)               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company. 

 

 
| /s/  James A. Berg        |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| James A.  Berg            |
| Chief  Accounting Officer |
| March 12,  2004      |

 

“This certification is beingprovided pursuant to Commission order, dated  May 21, 2003, in Inthe Matter of Minuteman International, Inc., et al., Admin. Proc. File No.3-11131.”

 

 “Thecertification provided by the CAO does not in anyway alter the responsibilitiesof the CEO and CFO of Minuteman International, Inc. in connection with theircertifications provided pursuant to Sections 302 and 906 of The Sarbanes-OxleyAct.”

 

----
Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ivecon Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jay D. Solomon, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge that:  (i)  the accompanying Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Act); and  (ii)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  IVECON CORPORATION  /s/:  Jay D. Solomon JAY D. SOLOMON, Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer   August 6, 2008  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Act, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### HARRIS v. SUNSET OIL CO. et al.

No. 308.

District Court, W. D. Washington.

Aug. 13, 1941.

DuPuis & Ferguson and George D. Lantz, all of Seattle, Wash., for plaintiffs.

Meier & Meagher, of Seattle, Wash., for defendant Sunset Oil Co.

Bogle, Bogle & Gates, of Seattle, Wash., and Martin J. Weil, of Los Angeles, Cal., and Ray Dumett, of Seattle, Wash., for defendant General Petroleum Corporation of Cal.

Hulbert, Helsell & Bettens, of Seattle, Wash., for defendant Standard Oil Co. of Cal.

Grosscup, Morrow & Ambler, of Seattle, Wash., for defendant Texas Co.

Eggerman & Rosling, of Seattle, Wash., and Wm. F. Kiessig and Edm. D. Buckley, both of San Francisco, Cal., for defendant Tidewater Associated Oil Co.

Bogle, Bogle & Gates, of Seattle, Wash., and Robt. E. Paradise and Wm. J. DeMartini, both of Los Angeles, Cal., and David Guntert, of Seattle, Wash., for defendant Richfield Oil Corporation, Inc.

Allen, Froude & Hilen, of Seattle, Wash., for defendant Gilmore Oil Co.

Little & Leader, of Seattle, Wash., for defendant Union Oil Co. of Cal.

Fairbrook & Williams, of Seattle, Wash., for defendant Signal Oil Co.

Hyland, Elvidge & Alvord and Monroe Watt, all of Seattle, Wash., for defendant Shell Oil Co., Inc.

BOWEN, District Judge.

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to produce as finally modified by plaintiffs will be granted, provided that compliance by defendants respectively shall be at their respective places of business during reasonable office hours or at such other places and times as may be mutually agreeable to the parties interested. This ruling shall not be construed to conflict with the previous ruling of any other court respecting any of the records covered by this motion.

In view of the showing of present business inconvenience and of the stipulation by defendants in open court that all of the records in question will be faithfully preserved pending this litigation, the court, subject to later order, will not at this time order impounding of the records covered by the motion to produce.

2. The motions to stay will be denied.

3. The motions for bills of particulars on behalf of each and all of the defendants will be granted in all respects, provided that if plaintiffs in any instances are unable to state the particulars demanded, that fact and the reasons therefor must be clearly set forth, and if such reasons do not justify failure to state the particulars, such failure may be brought to the court’s attention.

4. All other pending motions and parts thereof not previously ruled upon by the court will be denied.

5. An order or orders carrying the foregoing into effect may be settled upon stipulation or notice.
#### Town of Fenton et al., Appellants, v Town of Chenango, Respondent. (And Other Proceedings/Actions.)

Submitted April 2, 2012;

decided June 12, 2012

*899Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that part of the Appellate Division order that affirmed the denial of appellants’ motion to renew, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.