alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Helen Davidovici, Respondent, v Leonard Fritzson et al., Defendants, and Mechanic Mortgage Group, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[853 NYS2d 594]

*489The defendant David Mechanic was a shareholder of the defendant Mechanic Mortgage Group, Inc., a mortgage brokerage firm which employed the defendant Leonard Fritzson as a loan originator. In 2005, Donald Domite, who was the sole shareholder of the plaintiff corporations, obtained certain loans through Mechanic’s corporation, utilizing Fritzson. Domite then hired Fritzson, who was an accountant, to perform accounting services for his corporations. In connection with this employment, Domite gave Fritzson access to his corporations’ bank accounts. However, Fritzson, who had been convicted of tax fraud and bank fraud several years earlier, allegedly embezzled significant sums from those accounts.

Domite and his corporations then commenced the instant action against Fritzson, as well as Mechanic and his corporation, to recover damages caused by Fritzson’s alleged defalcations. Two causes of action were asserted against Mechanic and his corporation. The first cause of action was, in essence, one to recover damages for negligent hiring and supervision. The other cause of action, which was only asserted on Domite’s behalf, was to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The Supreme Court should have granted the motion of Mechanic and his corporation to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to 3211 (a) (7). Even when accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true, and accord*490ing Domite and his corporations the benefit of every possible favorable inference *(see Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]), the complaint fails to contain sufficient allegations from which it reasonably could be found that the allegedly negligent hiring and supervision of Fritzson was a proximate cause of damages to Domite and Domite’s corporations *(cf. Cardona v Cruz,*271 AD2d 221 [2000]; *Lemp v Lewis,*226 AD2d 907, 908 [1996]; *Ford v Gildin,*200 AD2d 224, 229 [1994]). In addition, a cause of action to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress generally must be premised upon conduct that unreasonably endangers a plaintiff’s safety or causes the plaintiff to fear for his or her safety, and Domite failed to allege that any such conduct occurred *(see Savva v Longo,*8 AD3d 551, 552 [2004]; *Perry v Valley Cottage Animal Hosp.,*261 AD2d 522, 522-523 [1999]; *Glendora v Gallicano,*206 AD2d 456 [1994]; *De Rosa v Stanley B. Michelman, P.C.,*184 AD2d 490, 491 [1992]). Finally, Domite and his corporations failed to set forth any allegations which, if true *(see Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d at 87), would justify piercing the corporate veil and holding Mechanic personally liable for his corporation’s alleged torts *(see Waltz v Lynch,*26 AD3d 894 [2006]; *Weis v Selected Meat Packers,*91 AD2d 1085, 1086 [1983]). Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Covello and Garni, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       1,813,499
<SECURITIES>                                 9,361,640
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,454
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,877,953
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,288,968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          271,833
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,017,135
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,288,968
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               870,374
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               171,190
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                699,184
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            699,184
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   699,184
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Benedict F. Morelli & Associates, P.C., Now Known as Morelli Ratner, P.C., Appellant, v Sybil Shainwald et al., Respondents.

[854 NYS2d 133]

The record does not support appellant’s contention that the arbitrators’ allocation of arbitration fees, appointment of an accountant at appellant’s expense and denial of appellant’s claim for disbursements were punitive. Such claim is speculative in this case. Assuming that a “punitive” award would have been improper, the “mere possibility” that the award was punitive is not a basis for disturbing it *(see Matter of West Side Lofts [Sentry Contr.],*300 AD2d 130, 130 [2002]). Indeed, an award should be vacated on this ground “only where the damages are genuinely intended to be punitive” *(Board of Educ. of Cent. School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Niagara, Wheatfield, Lewiston & Cambria v Niagara-Wheatfield Teachers Assn.,*46 NY2d 553, 558 [1979]).

Appellant’s claim that the inclusion in the award of cost allocations was outside the scope of the arbitrators’ authority is unpreserved, and we decline to review it. Were we to consider this claim, we would find it without merit. The arbitrators’ issuance of their decision in two parts was well within their discretion, as was their decision to apportion the arbitration fees, expenses, and compensation between the parties as they found appropriate. Arbitrators are free to shape a remedy with *477unrestrained flexibility in order to achieve a just result *(Matter of Board of Educ. of Norwood-Norfolk Cent. School Dist. [Hess],*49 NY2d 145, 152 [1979]). Moreover, the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association, which apply herein, permit the arbitrator to make interim rulings and awards in addition to a final award (R-43 [b]) and to apportion fees, expenses, and compensation among the parties in amounts deemed appropriate (R-43 [c]).

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW COX,

 Defendant.

Criminal No.: 11-99 (JLL)

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court by way of the following motions filed by pro se

Defendant Andrew Cox (“Defendant”): (1) Motion to Disqualify the instant District Court Judge

[Docket Entry No. 86]; (2) Motion for Removal and Sanctioning of Government Attorneys

[Docket Entry No. 89]; and (3) Motion for Release Pending Sentencing [Docket Entry No. 78];

the Court having considered the submissions of the Parties in support of and in opposition to the

instant motions, and for the reasons set forth in this Court’s accompanying Opinion,

IT IS accordingly on this 31 day of May, 2012,

st

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify the instant District Court Judge is

DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Removal and Sanctioning of Government

Attorneys is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Release Pending Sentencing is DENIED; and it

is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees [Docket Entry No. 108] is

1

Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 109 Filed 06/04/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1204
DENIED without prejudice to the refiling of the same; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s request for the return of his property are DENIED without

prejudice pending the resolution of his Motion to Withdraw his Guilty Plea; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s pending Motions as against the Government [Docket Entry

Nos. 88, 90, 92, 95 and 108] shall proceed before the instant Judge along with Defendant’s

discovery request filed with his Motion for Release [Docket Entry No. 78]; and it is further

ORDERED that the Government shall have fourteen (14) days from the issuance of this

Order to file its opposition, if any, to Defendant’s pending Motions, including his discovery

request; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant shall file his reply thereto, not to exceed ten (10) pages, by

June 21 , 2012; and it is further st

ORDERED that a hearing on Defendant’s pending Motions is hereby set before this

Court in Courtroom 5D, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey, on July 10 , 2012 at 1:30 p.m.

th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Jose L. Linares 

United States District Judge

2

Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 109 Filed 06/04/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1205
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 30606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15094]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): Translating Research To Protect Health Through 
Health Promotion, Prevention, and Preparedness, Panel E, Funding 
Opportunity Announcement (FOA) CD09-001, Initial Review

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:

    Time and Date: 12:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m., July 21, 2009 (Closed)
    Place: Teleconference.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with 
provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., 
and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and 
Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Matters to be Discussed: The meeting will include the initial 
review, discussion, and evaluation of ``Translating Research To 
Protect Health Through Health Promotion, Prevention, and 
Preparedness, Panel E, FOA CD09-001, initial review.''
    Contact Person for More Information: Maurine Goodman, M.A, 
M.P.H., Scientific Review Administrator, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, 
NE., Mailstop D72, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone (404) 639-4737.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry.

    Dated: June 18, 2009.
Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E9-15094 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION CLOSED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 

WHITE HORSE #2, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

v. : 

 :

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :

 : 

Defendant. : 

____________________________________:

Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh

ORDER

Case No. 11-cv-1538 (DMC) (JAD)

DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, U.S.D.J.:

This matter having come before the Court upon the Motion of Defendant United States of

America (“Defendant”) for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12), and the Court having considered the

submissions of the parties, and for the reasons stated in the Court’s Opinion filed this day;

IT IS on this 27th day of April, 2012;

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. 

 S/ Dennis M. Cavanaugh 

Dennis M. Cavanaugh, U.S.D.J.

 

Orig.: Clerk 

cc: All Counsel of Record

Hon. Joseph A. Dickson, U.S.M.J.

File

Case 2:11-cv-01538-DMC-JAD Document 14 Filed 04/30/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 263
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION





In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CYBRA Corporation. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harold Brand, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





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





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








Date: May 14, 2010                                                              /s/ Harold Brand


Harold Brand


Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4918 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4918

 To provide for the conveyance of certain Federal land administered by 
the Department of Agriculture in the City of Bastrop, Louisiana, to the 
 City to permit the City to establish and operate a regional emergency 
 services training center for firefighters, police, and EMS personnel 
 serving rural communities in northeast Louisiana, southern Arkansas, 
                        and western Mississippi.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2004

Mr. Alexander introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the conveyance of certain Federal land administered by 
the Department of Agriculture in the City of Bastrop, Louisiana, to the 
 City to permit the City to establish and operate a regional emergency 
 services training center for firefighters, police, and EMS personnel 
 serving rural communities in northeast Louisiana, southern Arkansas, 
                        and western Mississippi.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LAND CONVEYANCE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PROPERTY, 
              BASTROP, LOUISIANA.

    (a) Conveyance Required.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, the Secretary of Agriculture shall convey, without consideration, 
to the City of Bastrop, Louisiana (in this section referred to as the 
``City''), all right, title, and interest of the United States in and 
to the facility located at 4673 Eugene Ware Road, Bastrop, Louisiana, 
commonly known as Paradise Village Children's Home, and in and to a 
parcel of real property, including any improvements thereon, consisting 
of approximately 27 acres located in the City, for the purpose of 
permitting the City to establish and operate a regional emergency 
services training center for firefighters, police, and EMS personnel 
serving rural communities in northeast Louisiana, southern Arkansas, 
and western Mississippi.
    (b) Survey.--The exact acreage and legal description of the real 
property to be conveyed under subsection (a) shall be determined by a 
survey satisfactory to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be 
borne by the Secretary.
    (c) Additional Term and Conditions.--The Secretary may require such 
additional terms and conditions in connection with the conveyance under 
subsection (a) as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the 
interests of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Kevin Patrick Brady, Petitioner, v Jerome C. Gorski et al., Respondents.

[822 NYS2d 474]

Application for an order pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules denied, the cross motion granted and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioner’s request for sanctions denied. All concur. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Buckley, PJ., Tom, Saxe, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ERIC C. LLOYD,

Petitioner,

v.

J. T. SHARTLE,

Respondent.

Civil Action No. 11-1419 (JBS)

ORDER

This matter came before the Court upon the motion of

Petitioner, Eric C. Lloyd, for default judgment [Docket Item 10];

and

The Court having received the opposition of Respondent dated

August 30, 2011 [Docket Item 11]; and

The Court finding that the Respondent's Answer, filed August

22, 2011 [Docket Item 9], was timely under this Court's Order of

July 6, 2011, entered July 8, 2011 [Docket Item 5];

IT IS, this 31st day of August, 2011, hereby

ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for default judgment shall

be, and it hereby is, DENIED.

 s/ Jerome B. Simandle 

JEROME B. SIMANDLE

U.S. District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01419-JBS Document 12 Filed 08/31/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 135
907 A.2d 427

#### VICTOR DZIUBA AND ALEXANDRA DZIUBA, HUSBAND AND WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. SCOTT J. FLETCHER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND KRISTEN L. VANDERHOOK, LOUIS H. VANDERHOOK, JANE DOE EMPLOYER (A FICTITIOUS NAME), AND FIRST TRENTON INDEMNITY COMPANY, DEFENDANTS.

Argued September 11, 2006

Decided October 12, 2006.

*340*Michael G.B. David,*argued the cause for appellant *(Lewis & David,*attorneys).

*Anthony Granato,*argued the cause for respondents *(Jarve & Kaplan,*attorneys).

PER CURIAM.

We granted certification in this matter to review the Appellate Division judgment holding that *N.J.S.A.*39:6A-4.5a does not bar plaintiffs recovery of non-economic damages under the tortfeasor defendant’s automobile insurance policy. *Dziuba v. Fletcher,*382 *N.J.Super.*73, 82, 887 A.2d 732 (2005), *certif. granted,*186 *N.J.*363, 895 A.2d 450 (2006). As the Appellate Division decision noted, plaintiff, an uninsured motorist, was not operating his uninsured vehicle when he was injured in an accident involving defendant’s car. *Id.*at 76, 887 A.2d 732. In such circumstances, we agree with the Appellate Division that *N.J.S.A.*39:6A-4.5a does not preclude an injured plaintiff from recovering non-economic damages under a defendant’s policy of automobile insurance. Accordingly, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Weissbard’s opinion, we affirm the Appellate Division’s judgment.

*For affirmance*— Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI, ALBIN, WALLACE, and RIVERA-SOTO — 7.

*Opposed*— None.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Elder, Beal es and Senior Judge Annunziata

ARRIBA CORPORATION, WCAMC CONTRACTORS GROUP SELF-INSURANC E ASSOCIATION AND PMA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0486-10-1 PER CURIAM JULY 20, 2010 CHARLES VERNON HAMILTON

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Kevin W. Cloe; Angela F. Gibb s; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, P.C., on brief), for appellants. (Ralph Rabinowitz; Phillip J. Geib; Rabinowitz, Sw artz, Taliaferro, Swartz & Goodove, P.C., on brief), for appellee.

Arriba Corporation and its insurers WCAMC Contractors Group Self-Insurance Association and PMA Management Corporation (collectively “em ployer”) appeal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Co mmission finding (1) Charles Ha milton (claimant) cooperated with the vocation rehabilitation offered to him; (2) claimant’s failure to attend two appointments with his vocational rehabilitation specialist was justified; and (3) clai mant’s unwillingness to

work with his rehabilitation counselor did not ba r him from retaining his compensation benefits. Employer also contends the commission erred in overruling a credibility determination made by the deputy commissioner. We ha ve reviewed the record and th e commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accord ingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Hamilton v. Arriba Corp. , VWC File No. 214-89-29 (Feb.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - 11, 2010). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials before the Cour t and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 14, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40577 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PEDRO GRANDE-DORANTES, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(1:05-CR-1046-ALL) Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Pedro Grande-Dorantes appeals, on two bases, his sentence following a guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation. First, he contends the district court erred by enhancing his sentence pursuant to advisory Guidelines § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B), based on the court’s finding he was previously deported after a conviction for a felony drug-trafficking offense. Grande-Dorantes contends2

his prior Texas conviction for possession with intent to deliver

cocaine is not a drug-trafficking offense under § 2L1.2(b) (1)(B) because Texas Health and Safety Code § 481.112(a) defines a “delivery” to include an “offer to sell,” which is not punishable under the Controlled Substances Act. Because Grande-Dorantes challenged this sentencing enhancement in the district court, we review the district court’s application of the advisory Guidelines de novo ; its factual findings for clear

error. U

nited States v. Villegas , 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Villanueva , 408 F.3d 193, 203 & n.9 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 268 (2005). At sentencing , the Government submitted state-court records establishing that Grande-Dorantes stipulated to possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute it. Because Grande-Dorantes stipulated to conduct which constitutes a drug-trafficking offense under § 2L1.2, the district court did not err in enhancing his sentence. S

hepard v. United States , 544 U.S. 13, 16 (2005); United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 274 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Grande-Dorantes also asserts that the felony and aggravated felony provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in the light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and subsequent Supreme Court decisions. This constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224,3

235 (1998). Grande-Dorantes properly concedes this ; he raises the issue here to preserve it for further review. AFFIRMED
---

---

Exhibit 8

# SUBSIDIARIES OF
RADVISION LTD.

RADVISION
Ltd. has the following wholly owned subsidiaries:

1.    
          RADVISION Inc. (incorporated in the United States) 
2.    
          RADVISION B.V. (incorporated in the Netherlands) 
3.    
          RADVISION (HK) Ltd. (incorporated in Hong Kong) 
4.    
          RADVISION (UK) Ltd. (incorporated in the United Kingdom) 
5.    
          RADVISION Communication Development (Beijing) Co. Ltd. (incorporated in China) 
6.    
          RADVISION Japan KK (incorporated in Japan) 
7.    
          RADVISION France S.A.R.L (incorporated in France) 
8.    
          RADVISION GmbH (incorporated in Germany)



---

---