alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

531 

CA 12-02124 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

NANCY BURKHART, SISTER AND LEGAL GUARDIAN FOR 

BRIAN BURKHART, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PEOPLE, INC., ELISA SMITH, KATELYNNE COLEMAN, 

AMY MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, 

LUCIAN VISONE AND LAKEFRONT CONSTRUCTION, INC., 

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. 

 

HAGELIN KENT LLC, BUFFALO (MICHAEL T. HAGELIN OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. 

CLAUDE A. JOERG, COUNTY ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT, FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

DAMON MOREY LLP, BUFFALO (AMY ARCHER FLAHERTY OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Catherine

Nugent Panepinto, J.), entered February 2, 2012. The order denied the

motion of defendants Lucian Visone and Lakefront Construction, Inc., for

summary judgment on the issue of negligence. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously

affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action on behalf of her

brother seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he was struck by a

vehicle operated by defendant Lucian Visone and owned by defendant

Lakefront Construction, Inc. (Lakefront). Visone and Lakefront appeal

from an order denying their motion for partial summary judgment on the

issue of Visone’s negligence. We affirm. Visone and Lakefront failed to

submit evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the alleged

negligence of the other defendants or of plaintiff’s brother “was the

sole proximate cause of the accident, that [Visone] kept a proper

lookout, and that [Visone’s] alleged negligence, if any, did not

contribute to the happening of the accident” (Topalis v Zwolski, 76 AD3d

524, 525; see Sauter v Calabretta, 90 AD3d 1702, 1704). Visone and

Lakefront failed to establish in support of their motion that plaintiff’s

brother “suddenly ‘darted out . . . directly into the path of the . . .

vehicle’ ” (St. Andrew v O’Brien, 45 AD3d 1024, 1027-1028, lv denied and

dismissed 10 NY3d 929) or that Visone complied with his “duty to see that

which through the proper use of his senses he should have seen” (Lupowitz

v Fogarty, 295 AD2d 576, 576; see Rost v Stolzman, 81 AD3d 1401, 1402;
-2- 531 

CA 12-02124 

Hyatt v Messana, 67 AD3d 1400, 1402). Visone and Lakefront thus failed

to meet their initial burden on their motion (see generally Winegrad v

New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).

Entered: May 3, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Third Amendment to the Outside Directors Restricted Share Unit Plan



 Exhibit 10.73 
 THIRD AMENDMENT 
 TO THE 
 OUTSIDE DIRECTORS RESTRICTED SHARE UNIT PLAN 
 Background Information

  

	A.	 State Auto Financial Corporation (the “Company”) previously adopted and maintains the Outside Directors Restricted Share Unit Plan (the
“Plan”) for the benefit of the Company’s outside Directors. 


  

	B.	 The Company desires to amend the Plan to provide for prorated awards to Directors elected or appointed to the Board at times other than in connection with an
annual meeting of shareholders. 


  

	C.	 Section 7.1 of the Plan permits the Company’s Board of Directors to amend the Plan. 


 Amendment of the Plan 
 The Plan is hereby amended as follows effective January 1, 2009, unless another effective date is indicated herein: 
  

	1.	 The title and first paragraph of Section 3.1 of the Plan are hereby amended in their entirety to read as follows: 


 3.1 Awards of Restricted Share Units. Promptly following each annual meeting of the shareholders of the Company on and after the
Effective Date, each Outside Director shall be automatically granted an Award of 1,400 restricted share units (“Restricted Share Units”), or such lesser or greater number as determined by the Administrative Committee in accordance with
Section 6.2. Except for the elections which may be made by each Participant as provided in the Plan, the terms of each annual Award of Restricted Share Units shall be the same with respect to each Participant. In addition, an Outside Director
elected or appointed to the Board other than in connection with an annual meeting of shareholders shall be granted, at the time of such election or appointment, an Award of Restricted Share Units equal to the number of Restricted Share Units that
was granted to each Outside Director following the preceding annual meeting of shareholders, prorated based upon the number of anticipated days to the next annual meeting of shareholders. The Company will credit the number of Restricted Share Units
awarded for each Plan Year to the Participant’s Account. If an Organic Change occurs, then the number of Restricted Share Units to be awarded to Participants as annual Awards shall be adjusted consistent with such Organic Change. 
  

	2.	 All other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 


  

			
	STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ James A. Yano

	 Its:
	 	 Vice President and Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,320,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               36,386,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             134,071,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,473,000
<BONDS>                                     69,076,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        91,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  48,431,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               134,071,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            37,536,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            35,288,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,248,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   564,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,684,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF: JEREMY ISARD :

:

: No. 22 WM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5 th day of June , 2023, the Motion for Extension of Admission to

Practice Law Pursuant to Pa.B.A.R. 311(g) is GRANTED.
EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(SUBSECTIONS (a)
AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,

UNITED STATES CODE)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Raybor Management Inc. (the Company), in his capacity and as of the date set forth below, does hereby certify with respect
to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 10-KSB Report) that to his knowledge:



| | (1) |  | the 10-KSB 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 10-KSB Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: May 22,
2003



/s/ JEFFREY D.
HOYALJeffrey D. Hoyal President and Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Arizona Gold and Onyx Mining Company f/k/a Viking Capital Group, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, Dick Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operationsof the Company.

 

May 8, 2018

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwiseadopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided tothe Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



Nicor Gas Company
Form 10-K
Exhibit 99.02

CERTIFICATION

I, Kathleen L. Halloran, Executive Vice President Finance and Administration of
Nicor Gas Company, certify that:



|1) |  | This annual report on Form 10-K of Nicor Gas Company 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 annual report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Nicor Gas Company.

|     |  |                |  |                           
|---- |  | -------------- |  | --------------------------
|Date |  | March 27, 2003 |  | /s/ KATHLEEN L. HALLORAN  
|     |  |                |  |                           
|     |  |                |  | Kathleen L. Halloran      
|     |  |                |  | Executive Vice President  
|     |  |                |  | Finance and Administration

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Nicor Gas Company and will be retained by Nicor Gas Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brandon S. Salmans, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 675]

Defendant was charged in a four-count indictment with robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and menacing in the second degree. Defendant thereafter agreed to plead guilty to robbery in the second degree and menacing in the second degree in return for, among other things, a sentence of 10 years in prison, five years of postrelease supervision and restitution. Defendant did not waive his right to appeal and the remaining counts of the indictment were dismissed with prejudice. County Court subsequently sentenced defendant to 10 years in prison and one year in jail (to run concurrently), ordered restitution and, among other things, imposed the statutory surcharge. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant, as so limited by his brief, initially contends that the sentence of 10 years in prison followed by five years of postrelease supervision is harsh and excessive and should be modified to the mínimums permitted by law. Based upon our review of the record, and in light of defendant’s criminal history, we perceive neither an abuse of discretion by County Court nor the existence of any extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction in the sentence imposed in the interest of justice *(see People v Washington,*4 AD3d 546, 548-549 [2004]). To the *962extent that defendant argues that the one-year jail term imposed on the misdemeanor charge of menacing in the second degree was not part of the plea agreement, we need note only that defendant pleaded guilty to both charges in exchange for a 10-year term of imprisonment, and the imposition of the concurrent jail term did not deprive him of the benefit of that plea bargain.

As for defendant’s claim that County Court was without authority to impose both restitution and the statutory surcharge due to the provisions of Penal Law § 60.35 (6), defendant failed to object to the surcharge at the time it was imposed or move for resentencing pursuant to CPL 420.10 (5); as such, this issue is not preserved for our review *(see People v Dunn,*254 AD2d 511, 512 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 1031 [1998], *cert denied*527 US 1024 [1999]; *People v Burt,*142 AD2d 794 [1988]). In any event, “the plain language of [Penal Law § 60.35 (6)] permits the sentencing court to order both restitution and the mandatory surcharge/crime victim assistance fee” where, as here, defendant has not yet made restitution *(People v Quinones,*95 NY2d 349, 352 [2000]). Moreover, we do not require that a defendant be advised, prior to his or her plea, that the statutory surcharge is a part of the sentence *(see People v Swart,*20 AD3d 691, 692 [2005]; *People v Neu,*1 AD3d 798 [2003]; *see also People v Bonner,*21 AD3d 1184, 1185 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 773 [2006]). Accordingly, we decline to disturb defendant’s convictions.

Peters, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
exhibit10-15_031309.htm


    EXHIBIT
10.15

     

    
 

    
      AMENDMENTS
TO THE

      WENDY’S
INTERNATIONAL, INC. 2007 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

      


       

      WHEREAS,
Wendy’s International, Inc. (the “Company”) entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of April 23, 2008 (the “Merger Agreement”),
with Triarc Companies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Triarc”), and Green
Merger Sub, Inc., an Ohio  corporation and a direct wholly-owned
subsidiary of Triarc (“Merger Sub” ),
pursuant to which Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company at the
Effective Time (as defined in the Merger Agreement), with the Company as the
surviving corporation and a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Triarc (the “Merger”);

      


      WHEREAS, the Company sponsors the
Wendy’s International, Inc. Wendy’s 1990 Stock Option Plan, the Wendy’s
International, Inc. Wendy’s WeShare Stock Option Plan, the Wendy’s
International, Inc. 2003 Stock Incentive Plan and the Wendy’s International,
Inc. 2007 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2007
Plan”);

       

      WHEREAS,
Section 5.5(a)(v) of the Merger Agreement provides, in relevant part, that as
soon as practicable following the date of the Merger Agreement, the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company shall make such adjustments
and amendments with the consent of Triarc to or make such determinations with
respect to Wendy’s Stock Options (as defined in the Merger Agreement), Wendy’s
Share-Based Awards (as defined in the Merger Agreement) and Restricted Shares
(as defined in the Merger Agreement) as are necessary to implement the
provisions of Section 5.5(a) of the Merger Agreement; and

      


      WHEREAS,
in connection with the Merger the 2007 Plan is hereby amended as
follows,  effective as of the Effective Time:

      


      
        	
                1)  

              	
                References
      to the “Shares” throughout the 2007 Plan shall hereby be deemed references
      to shares of class A common stock, par value $0.10 per share, of Triarc
      Companies, Inc., and any other securities into which such shares are
      changed or for which such shares are
exchanged.

              


      

      


      
        	
                2)  

              	
                References
      to “the Company” in Sections 3.1, 4.1(iv), 9.2(iv) and 29.5 of the 2007
      Plan shall hereby be deemed references to Triarc Companies,
      Inc.

              


      

      


      
        	 
      


      

      
        	
                3)  

              	
                In
      the last sentences of each of Section 5.4(vi)(B), 6.6(ii)(B) and
      7.6(ii)(B), the phrase “for a period of one year following the date of
      such Change in Control” shall hereby be replaced in its entirely by “for a
      period of one year following the date of such
  termination.”
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00310-CV

In re Twenty First Century Holdings, Inc. d/b/a American Geothermal Systems, Inc.;

Victor DeMarco; and N. West Short

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See

Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; In re Smith, 355 S.W.3d 901, 901–02 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011, orig.

proceeding) (where relators did not argue or show writ was necessary to preserve jurisdiction,

appellate court lacked jurisdiction to issue writ of mandamus against justice of peace). 

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Goodwin and Field

Filed: May 24, 2013
Supreme Court

In the Matter of Peter Leach

. No. 201 9

- 21

- M

. P

.

O R D E R

On March 7, 2019, this Court’s Chief Disciplinary Counsel filed a Petition for Immediate

Interim Suspension and for Appointment of a Special Master, which avers that the respondent, Peter

Leach, a member of the Rhode Island Bar, has engaged in serious professional miscond uct. The

r espondent was provided notice that the Petition would be heard by this Court on March 14, 2019.

We considered the Petition at our c onference on March 14, 2019. The r espondent failed to

appear and show cause w hy the P etition should not be granted. Having heard the representation s of

disciplinary counsel, we deem that the P etition should be granted.

Accordingly

, it is ordered, adjudg ed

, and decreed that the respondent, Peter Leach, is hereby

suspended fr om the practice of law in this s tate

, effective immediately and until further order of this

Court.

It is further ordered that David D. Curtin, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, be appointed as Special

Master to take possession of and inventory the r espondent’s client files and accounts

, and take

whatever steps necessary to protect the clients’ interests ; including

, but not limited to

, returning the

files to the clients or new counsel of the clients ’ choice. The Special Master is further authorized to

have access to r espondent’s office and files in order to carry out these duties.

Entered as an Order of this Court this 15 th Day of March , 201 9

.

By Order,

_______________ /s/

_________________ ClerkSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

SUPREME COURT

– CLERK’S OFFICE

ORDER COVER SHEET

Title of Case In the Matter of Peter Leach

.

Case Number No. 201 9

- 21

- M.P.

Date Order Filed March 15, 2019

Justices Suttell, C.J., Goldberg

, Flaherty, Robinson, and

Indeglia, JJ.

Source of Appeal N/A

Judicial Officer From Lower Court N /A

Attorney(s) on Appeal For Petitioner:

David D. Curtin, Esq.

Chief Disciplinary Counsel

For Respondent:

Peter Leach , Pro Se

SU

- CMS

- 02B (revised November 2016)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of income and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1999
<CASH>                                         160,743
<SECURITIES>                                     2,070
<RECEIVABLES>                                   94,689
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,280
<INVENTORY>                                     33,015
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               313,694
<PP&E>                                       1,783,212
<DEPRECIATION>                                 502,418
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,837,947
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          249,412
<BONDS>                                        405,371
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,796
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,056,271
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,837,947
<SALES>                                      1,586,145
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,948,239
<CGS>                                          995,966
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,423,099
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               315,440
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,039
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                207,661
<INCOME-TAX>                                    84,303
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            123,358
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   123,358
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .95
        

</TABLE>