alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[920 NYS2d 569]

#### Home Loan Services, Inc., Successor by Merger to National City Home Loan Services, Respondent, v Frances Moskowitz et al., Respondents, and Jacob Markowitz et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

February 14, 2011

*38*Clair & Gjertsen,*Scarsdale *{Ira S. Clair*of counsel), for Jacob Markowitz and another, appellants. *Knuckles, Komosinski & Elliott, LLP,*Elmsford *{Jordan J. Manfro*and *Robert T Yusko*of counsel), for Home Loan Services, Inc., respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the order is reversed, without costs, and the motion by occupants Jacob Markowitz and Sarah Markowitz to dismiss the petition as against them is granted.

Prior to commencing this summary proceeding, petitioner served a 10-day notice to quit upon occupants, together with a certified copy of the referee’s deed, by “nail and mail” service, after four attempts at personal service had been made at different times on different days. Occupants Jacob Markowitz and Sarah Markowitz (appellants) moved to dismiss the petition as against them on the ground that attaching a copy of the referee’s deed to a 10-day notice to quit served by “nail and mail” is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of RPAPL 713 (5) that a deed be “exhibited” to the respondent. The Civil Court denied appellants’ motion. We reverse.

RPAPL 713 provides in pertinent part:

> “A special proceeding may be maintained under this article after a ten-day notice to quit has been served upon the respondent in the manner prescribed in section 735, upon the following grounds: . . .

> “5. . . . [T]he property has been sold in foreclosure and either the deed delivered pursuant to such sale, or a copy of such deed, certified as provided in the civil practice law and rules, has been exhibited to him.”

While this statute provides that a notice to quit may be served in the same manner as a notice of petition and petition, it does not make the same provision for the referee’s deed. Instead, the statute specifically requires that the deed be “exhibited” to the respondent. In our view, and in light of the strong policy *39prohibiting unlawful evictions *(see generally*Bill Jacket, L 1981, ch 467), attaching a copy of the referee’s deed to a 10-day notice to quit served by “nail and mail” was insufficient to satisfy the requirement of exhibition of the deed pursuant to RPAPL 713 (5) *(see Colony Mtge. Bankers v Mercado,*192 Misc 2d 704 [Sup Ct, Westchester County 2002]; *but see Novastar Mtge., Inc. v LaForge,*12 Misc 3d 1179[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51306[U] [Sup Ct, Greene County 2006] [discussing a writ of assistance]; *Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Resnik,*24 Misc 3d 1238[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51793DJ] [Nassau Dist Ct 2009]; *GRP/AG REO 2004-1, LLC v Friedman,*8 Misc 3d 317, 318-319 [Just Ct, Town of Ramapo, Rockland County 2005]). Accordingly, the order is reversed and appellants’ motion to dismiss the petition as against them is granted.

Pesce, EJ., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-31214

Conference Calendar

 

MICHAEL ROY RICKS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MIKE GILLIAM, Warden; FRANCIS

J. EVERHEART, Dr.; BONNIE BOBER;

J. WILKIE; JOHN DOE,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-1433-P

- - - - - - - - - -

April 18, 1996

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant appeals the district court’s dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 

Appellant contends that his allegations state an Eighth Amendment 

claim for deprivation of medical care because he alleged that the

appellees were aware of his serious medical need but deliberately

denied him medical treatment and that appellees forced him to

perform a work assignment that he was not able to perform. 
No. 95-31214

- 2 -

Appellant also contends that the district court abused its

discretion in dismissing his § 1983 action without conducting an

evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion and find that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in holding that appellant’s allegations

indicated that appellees negligently misdiagnosed appellant’s

condition, not that they were deliberately indifferent to

appellant’s serious medical needs. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920

F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Appellant’s allegations do not

indicate that appellees were aware that the work assignment would

significantly aggravate appellant’s serious medical condition. 

See Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1246 (5th Cir. 1989). 

Because additional factual development would not enable appellant

to state a claim that would pass § 1915(d) muster, the district

court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant’s

§ 1983 action without conducting an evidentiary hearing. See

Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 10 (5th Cir. 1994). 

AFFIRMED.
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 Authentidate
Holding Corp. (the company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, being, OConnell Benjamin, Chief
Executive Officer of the company, and William A. Marshall, Chief Financial Officer of the company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.

Dated: May 12, 2011



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|/s/ OConnell Benjamin  |  |  |  | /s/ William A. Marshall
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
|                        |  | 
|                        |  |  |  |                        

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the company and will
be retained by the company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
----

| (1) | the Annual Report on form 10-K of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2011, (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. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/  A.A. McLean, III      |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   | A.A. McLean III                      |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MOLECULAR
DYNAMIC INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          10,957
<SECURITIES>                                    11,404
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,202
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (275)
<INVENTORY>                                      9,445
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,611
<PP&E>                                          10,386
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,732)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,037
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,403
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,247
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,387
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,037
<SALES>                                         41,254
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,254
<CGS>                                           18,303
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,303
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,234
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,509
<INCOME-TAX>                                       541
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,968
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,968
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-52408 and 333-66244on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-120707 on Form S-3 of ourreports dated March 29, 2005, relating to the financial statements of WJCommunications, Inc. and management’s report of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof WJ Communications, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004.
| /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE  LLP |   |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| San Jose, California                |   |
| March 29, 2005                 |   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 11


                         SALIVA DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS, INC.
                          COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,                  SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
                                            ---------------------------                  -------------------------
                                            2003                    2002                2003                   2002
                                            ----                    ----                ----                   ----
(Restated) (Restated)
       Basic earnings:
<S>                                  <C>                    <C>                    <C>                  <C>
Net (loss)                           $          (413,670)   $          (132,165)   $        (824,646)   $        (158,388)
                                     ===================    ===================    =================    =================

Shares:
Weighted common shares
outstanding                                   30,429,491              8,929,491           24,490,264            4,999,626
                                     ===================    ===================    =================    =================

Basic and diluted (loss) per share   $             (0.01)   $             (0.01)   $           (0.03)   $           (0.03)
                                     ===================    ===================    =================    =================


</TABLE>
[912 NYS2d 398]

#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v Terrence A. Harris, Defendant.

County Court, Cattaraugus County,

December 9, 2010

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Mark Williams, Public Defender,*for defendant. *Lori Rieman, District Attorney,*for plaintiff.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Larry M. Himelein, J.

On April 20, 2010, defendant was arrested for two counts each of sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child. According to Town Court’s divestiture form, *484bail was set and posted and defendant was held for grand jury action on May 4, 2010. He has since been indicted for two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree and two counts of endangering and a trial is scheduled.

On May 24, 2010, a fugitive information was filed, alleging that defendant had violated a probation sentence in Florida on charges of unlawful sexual activity with a minor. He was arraigned before Judge Nenno and remanded on the fugitive information. On July 2, 2010, defendant filed a habeas corpus petition seeking his release, which this court denied on July 6, 2010 and again on September 27, 2010. Defendant has asked me to issue a written decision.

This case is governed by CPL 570.44, which gives only the Governor the authority to order extradition in a case where the fugitive has criminal charges pending in New York. Both the Practice Commentaries and scant case law hold that this section gives the Governor of New York the “discretion to withhold extradition until completion of punishment in cases where criminal charges are pending against the defendant in this state at the time of a demand for extradition” (Preiser, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 11 A, CPL 570.44, at 293; *see also People v Maldonado,*28 Misc 3d 649 [Sullivan County Ct 2010]; *People ex rel. Lynch v Warden of City Prison,*199 Misc 570 [Sup Ct, NY County 1951]).

On December 8, 2010,1 called the Governor’s Extradition Office and spoke to Carol Swan, who either works in or is in charge of the office. She explained that the Governor’s policy is to allow criminal cases in New York to run their course before extradition is ordered by the Governor. This policy seems to be both logical and efficient (although I understand defendant’s preference to face a violation of probation charge in Florida rather than criminal charges in New York in December).

Accordingly, defendant’s petition for release is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             364
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,471
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,835
<PP&E>                                       4,939,913
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,781,664
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,208,218
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,612
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,208,218
<SALES>                                        346,674
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               347,370
<CGS>                                          109,659
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  246,232
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                101,138
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            101,138
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   101,138
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 374 

To amend the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 

to extend the requirement of the Secretary to furnish hospital care 

and medical services through non-Department of Veterans Affairs entities 

to veterans residing in certain locations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2015 

Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself and Ms. AYOTTE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability 

Act of 2014 to extend the requirement of the Secretary 

to furnish hospital care and medical services through 

non-Department of Veterans Affairs entities to veterans 

residing in certain locations. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 374 IS

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE 

2 NON-DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

3 CARE TO VETERANS RESIDING IN CERTAIN 

4 LOCATIONS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (p)(1) of section 101 

6 of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 

7 2014 (Public Law 113–146; 38 U.S.C. 1701 note) is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘care and services’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘care or services to an eligible veteran described in sub10 paragraph (A), (B), or (D) of subsection (b)(2)’’. 

11 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Such section is 

12 further amended— 

13 (1) in subsection (p), in the subsection heading, 

14 by inserting ‘‘TO CERTAIN VETERANS’’ after ‘‘SERV15 ICES’’; and 

16 (2) in subsection (q)(2)(F), by striking ‘‘termi17 nation’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 May 26, 2017

Order 

Clerk

May 26, 2017

151998(72)(77)

In re Estate of CLIFFMAN

_________________________________________

PHILLIP CARTER, ELMER CARTER, DAVID

CARTER, and DOUG CARTER,

Appellants,

SC: 151998

v COA: 321174

Allegan Probate Ct: 

 13-058358-DE

RICHARD D. PERSINGER, Personal 

Representative of the Estate of GORDON JOHN

CLIFFMAN, BETTY WOODWYK, and

VIRGINIA WILSON,

Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to file a supplement to the motion for 

reconsideration is GRANTED. The motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 17, 

2017 order is considered, and it is DENIED.

BERNSTEIN, J., not participating.
EXHIBIT 32

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           OF VALENCE TECHNOLOGY, INC.

     This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A
(the "Form 10-Q/A") for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 of Valence Technology,
Inc. (the "Issuer").

     I, Stephan B. Godevais, the Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer, certify
that to the best of my knowledge:

     (i)  the Form 10-Q/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
          or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
          78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

     (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Issuer.

Dated:  November 14, 2003.
                                           /s/ Stephan B. Godevais
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name: Stephan B. Godevais




<PAGE>

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                           PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           OF VALENCE TECHNOLOGY, INC.


     This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A
(the "Form 10-Q/A") for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 of Valence Technology,
Inc. (the "Issuer").

     I, Kevin W. Mischnick, the Vice President of Finance (the Principal
Financial Officer) of the Issuer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

     (i)  the Form 10-Q/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
          or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
          78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

     (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Issuer.

Dated:  November 14, 2003.
                                           /s/ Kevin W. Mischnick
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Name:  Kevin W. Mischnick
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             170
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1219
<ALLOWANCES>                                       160
<INVENTORY>                                        332
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1635
<PP&E>                                            2285
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1922
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1998
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3870
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                          3321
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (7332)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1998
<SALES>                                           5715
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5715
<CGS>                                             4324
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5701
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (127)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    40
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 159
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (58)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (58)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (58)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>