alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lake Claire Homeowners Association, Inc., et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Armand Rosenberg et al., Appellants-Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 476]

—In an action, *inter alia,*for a judgment declaring the rights and obligations of the parties regarding the maintenance of a lake and a dam owned by the defendants, (1) the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated November 15, 1996, as denied their motion (a) to vacate their default in appearing at a trial readiness conference, and (b) for summary judgment on their counterclaim, and (2) the plaintiffs cross-appeal from so much of the same order as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiffs.

The defendants’ counterclaim alleging conspiracy by the plaintiffs was dismissed on default when they failed to appear at a scheduled trial readiness conference *(see,*22 NYCRR 202.27 [b]). The court properly denied the defendants’ motion, *inter alia,*to vacate their default absent an adequate showing that their claim has legal merit *(see,*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Alliance Prop. Mgt. & Dev. v Andrews Ave. Equities,*70 NY2d 831; *Barasch v Micucci,*49 NY2d 594; *Martinez v Otis El. Co.,*213 AD2d 523). There is no substantive tort of conspiracy in New York *(see, Alexander & Alexander v Fritzen,*68 NY2d 968; *Burrell v International Assn. of Firefighters,*216 AD2d 346; *Vogt v Witmeyer,*212 AD2d 1013, *affd*87 NY2d 998; *Falle v Metalios,*132 AD2d 518, 520).

We note that the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim was academic as the defendants’ counterclaim had already been dismissed on default.

We find no basis for awarding sanctions. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Dissolution of Corfian Enterprises, Ltd., and Another. Theano Pappas, Respondent; Corfian Enterprises, Ltd., et al., Appellants; Theodoros Kalogiannis, Respondent.

[861 NYS2d 392]

In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a for the judicial dissolution of Corfian Enterprises, Ltd., and Epiros Realty, Ltd., Corfian Enterprises, Ltd., Epiros Realty, Ltd., and Paul Fotinos appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), entered September 6, 2007, which denied their renewed motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The petitioner, Theano Pappas, commenced this proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a seeking the judicial dissolution of Corfian Enterprises, Ltd. (hereinafter Corfian), and Epiros Realty, Ltd. (hereinafter Epiros). According to the allegations in the petition, Pappas, Paul Fotinos, and Theodoros Kalogiannis each are a one-third shareholder of Corfian and Epiros. Corfian, Epiros, and Fotinos (hereinafter *829collectively the appellants) served an answer to the petition in which, inter alia, they affirmatively asserted that Fotinos is the sole shareholder of Corfian and Epiros. Kalogiannis joined in the petitioner’s request for the dissolution of Corfian and Epiros.

Issue finding, rather than issue determination, is the key to summary judgment *(see Paulin v Needham,*28 AD3d 531 [2006]). Contrary to the appellants’ contention, they did not establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the petition for lack of standing, since they failed to tender sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case as to whether Pappas and Kalogiannis each possess the requisite 20% ownership interest in Corfian and Epiros necessary to seek dissolution of the two companies *(see*Business Corporation Law § 1104-a). Accordingly, the appellants’ renewed motion for summary judgment was properly denied. In light of this determination, we need not examine the sufficiency of the opposing papers of Pappas and Kalogiannis *(see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; *Kuri v Bhattacharya,*44 AD3d 718 [2007]).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P, Angiolillo, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23**

 

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration StatementsNo. 333-97537, No. 333-97533, No. 33-96582, No. 33-96580, No. 333-34509 and No.333-91591 of Canterbury Park Holding Corporation on Form S-8 of our reportdated March 17, 2003 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of CanterburyPark Holding Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2002.

 
| Deloitte & Touche LLP |
|---------------------------|
|                      |
|                      |
| Minneapolis, Minnesota    |
| March 28, 2003            |

 

1

----
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.3



FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is dated as of March 29, 2018 (this "Agreement") by and between, National Storage Affiliates Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust (the "Company"), and Arlen D. Nordhagen (the "Executive").


RECITALS


WHEREAS, the undersigned are parties to that certain Employment Agreement dated as of April 28, 2015 (the "Employment Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the Employment Agreement on the terms and conditions contained herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises made herein, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:
1.Amendment. The Employment Agreement is hereby amended effective July 1, 2018 by deleting references to "President" in Sections 2 and 6.1(b) of the Employment Agreement. 


All other provisions of the Employment Agreement not amended herein remain unchanged and in full force and effect in accordance with their terms.








[Signature Page Follows]










IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this amendment as of the day and year first above written.
                        
COMPANY:


NATIONAL STORAGE AFFILIATES TRUST








By:  /s/ Tamara D. Fischer
Name:    Tamara D. Fischer
Title:    Authorized Signatory




EXECUTIVE:




/s/ Arlen D. Nordhagen
Name:    Arlen D. Nordhagen
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1008, -1009, -1010, -1034, -1035, -1036, -1037 THERASENSE, INC. (now known as Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc.)

and ABBOTT LABORATORIES,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, and NOVA BIOMEDICAL CORPORATION, Defendants-Cross Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in consolidated case nos. 04-CV-2123, 04-CV-3327, and 04-CV-3732,

Judge William H. Alsup. ON MOTION Before BRYSON, Circuit Judge. ORDER Becton, Dickinson and Company et al. (BD) (1) move the court to consider their argument on the doctrine of equivalents in support of their cross appeal as an argument in support of affirmance of the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, (2) move to strike from Therasense, Inc. et al.'s (Therasense) reply brief arguments concerning literal infringement or, in the alternative, to accept BD's surreply brief, and (3) move to strike from Therasense's reply brief modified versions of demonstratives that BD states were used, but not admitted into evidence, at trial. Therasense opposes and moves to strike BD's surreply brief. Upon consideration thereof,IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motions are deferred for consideration by the merits panel assigned to hear this case.

A copy of BD's motion, Therasense's opposition and motion, any reply, and this order shall be transmitted to the merits panel assigned to hear this case. FOR THE COURT 

## JUN 11

## 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk

cc: Rohit Kumar Singla, Esq. Bradford J. Badke, Esq. s17 

# vatmatitier
JUN 11 2009 ORBALY CLERK

2009-1008 et al. 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the Caredata.com, Inc.
Consolidated Condensed Statement of Operations for the years ended December 31,
1999 and the Caredata.com, Inc. Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheet as of
December 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
consolidated condensed financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             199
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,955
<ALLOWANCES>                                       902
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,056
<PP&E>                                           9,058
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,021
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  88,768
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,552
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            4,255
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,848
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    88,768
<SALES>                                         39,828
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,828
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,868
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 360
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,075
<INCOME-TAX>                                       675
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       400
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04


</TABLE>
#### Eva Hoenig, Respondent, v Dan Hoenig, Appellant.

[664 NYS2d 823]

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated October 18, 1996, as (1) awarded the plaintiff *263wife temporary maintenance in the amount of $1,000 per month, (2) awarded her temporary custody of the parties’ two infant children, without a hearing, (3) awarded her temporary child support in the amount of $1,396 per month, (4) directed the defendant husband to pay all of the carrying charges on the marital residence, and (5) required him to pay health insurance premiums for the wife and children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The purpose of an award of pendente lite relief is to “ ‘ “tide over the more needy party, not to determine the correct ultimate distribution” ’ ” *(Kesten v Kesten,*234 AD2d 427; *Roach v Roach,*193 AD2d 660). Pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse, with due regard for the preseparation standard of living *(see, Kesten v Kesten, supra; Byer v Byer,*199 AD2d 298).

Further, modifications of a pendente lite maintenance should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances, such as when a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or when justice otherwise requires *(see, Shipman v Shipman,*237 AD2d 426). The general rule continues to be that the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see, *Shipman v Shipman, supra).*

Here, the wife’s showing with respect to the marital lifestyle was such that, under the circumstances, there was a basis for the court to conclude that the husband’s actual income and financial resources were greater than what he reported on his tax returns *(see, Kesten v Kesten, supra; Felton v Felton,*175 AD2d 794). The Supreme Court essentially found the husband’s view of his finances to be “patently unbelievable” *{Felton v Felton, supra,*at 794) and was justified in imputing income to him which was “far higher” than that which he was willing to admit, and in making an award based upon the wife’s “proof of her needs” *(Felton v Felton, supra,*at 794).

Further, under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court was not required to conduct a hearing with respect to granting custody of the parties’ two minor children to the wife *(see, Kehoe v Kehoe,*234 AD2d 272; *Lazich v Lazich,*189 AD2d 750; *Krantz v Krantz,*175 AD2d 863, 865). The husband’s remedy with respect to a visitation schedule, is to make an application in the Supreme Court.

The award for child support was supported by the record.

The remaining contentions of the husband are unpreserved *264for review or without merit. Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Edward H. Heller, a Disbarred Attorney.

[668 NYS2d 92]

—Motion by petitioner for an order granting reargument, and upon reargument, reinstating him as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, denied. No opinion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     Exhibit 23


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We have issued our report dated February 19, 1998, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements included in the Annual Report of A.S.V., Inc. on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1997. We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of said report in the Registration Statements of A.S.V., Inc. on Forms
S-8 (File No. 33-94248, effective June 30, 1995, File No. 33-94250, effective
July 3, 1995, File No. 33-43075, effective December 23, 1997).




GRANT THORNTON LLP



Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 23, 1998
Exhibit43SMG9301410KLetterDated11-25-14


                                                                  




Exhibit 4.3




November 25, 2014




Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C.  20549


		
	Re:
	The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company – Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014




Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, an Ohio corporation (“Scotts Miracle-Gro”), is today filing its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014 (the “Form 10-K”).
Neither Scotts Miracle-Gro nor any of its consolidated subsidiaries has outstanding any instrument or agreement with respect to its long-term debt, other than those filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Form 10-K, under which the total amount of long-term debt authorized exceeds ten percent (10%) of the total assets of Scotts Miracle-Gro and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.  In accordance with the provisions of Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of SEC Regulation S-K, Scotts Miracle-Gro hereby agrees to furnish to the SEC, upon request, a copy of each such instrument or agreement defining the rights of holders of long-term debt of Scotts Miracle-Gro or the rights of holders of long-term debt of one of Scotts Miracle-Gro’s consolidated subsidiaries, in each case which is not being filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Form 10-K.
Very truly yours,


THE SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY


/s/ THOMAS RANDAL COLEMAN


Thomas Randal Coleman
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer





14111 Scottslawn Road Marysville, OH 43041 937-644-0011   
www.scotts.com
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

The undersigned, Maureen D. Howley, Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of the Managing Owner,
Preferred Investment Solutions Corp. (the Managing Owner), of Diversified Futures Trust I (the Trust), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



| | (1) | The Trusts Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual
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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Maureen D. Howley                            
|Maureen D. Howley                                
|Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President
|March 31, 2006
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

 
 



 
 Dear Kelly, 
 This letter
sets forth the basic terms of your cash compensation when you become the Chief Financial Officer. Effective as of January 1, 2015, your base salary will increase to $735,000 and your target bonus percentage under the Cisco Systems, Inc.
Executive Incentive Plan will increase to 125% of your base salary. 
 In connection with your promotion and effective as of November 21, 2014, the
Compensation Committee approved a grant of restricted stock units and performance-based restricted stock units with an approximate total value of $3,500,000, subject to the standard terms and conditions of Cisco’s form of stock unit agreement
and performance-based stock unit agreement, respectively. 
 As consideration for a payment to you of $1,000,000 to consolidate all entitlements under one
agreement, which payment shall be made in two installments of $500,000 on January 9, 2015 and January 9, 2016 provided you are an employee of Cisco on those dates, you agree to waive your rights to any payments and benefits due to you
after December 31, 2014 pursuant to your offer letter dated December 20, 2011, and your offer letter will terminate effective as of December 31, 2014. 

Congratulations on your promotion! 
 Best, 

/s/ Francine Katsoudas                 11/21/14 

Francine Katsoudas 
 Senior Vice President, Human Resources 

 

	
	 So agreed,

	
	 /s/ Kelly Kramer
                11/21/14

	 Kelly Kramer
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00498- CV

Steven B. Aubrey, Appellant

v. Sus an Kay Stee g, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 200 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 3-0 0358 6, H ONO RAB LE O RLINDA NARANJO , JUDGE P RESIDING

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

Steven B. Aubre y appea ls the district court’s order g ranting a plea to the jurisdiction and dismiss ing his petition for wr i t o f mandamus ag ainst J ustice of the Peace Susan Kay Steeg

. Aubre y ’s mandamus petition alleg ed that Steeg abused her discretion by issuing cer tain peac e bond order s ag ainst him. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 7.03 (mag istrate may order person who threa tens
to commit offe nse to g ive bond to keep the peac e for one y ear from date of bond). Aubre y deposited the bond amounts require d by the peac e bonds, but the State alleg ed that he violated the peac e bond order s and filed suit for forf eiture of the bonds. See id

. art. 7.16 (district or county attorney may file suit in name of State seeking forf eiture of peac e bond). After filing this appea l, Aubre y resolved the
State’s enfor ceme nt of the peac e bonds by enter ing into an ag ree d order , and Steeg arg ues that this
appea l has bec ome moot based on the a g ree d order . We ag ree that the appe al is moot.

We may not decide a case that has become moot during the pendenc y of the litigation.
He ck ma n v. W illiamson Cnty ., 369 S.W .3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012). A case becomes m oot if, sinc ethe time of filing, a justiciable controve rsy betwee n the p ar t i es h as ce ased to exis t, meaning that

the issues prese nted are no longe r “live,” that or the parties lack a leg ally cogni z able interest in the outcome. Id .; see Ex parte Carlton , No. 01-97-01387- CV, 1998 Tex. App. L EXI S 7654, at *2 (Tex. A pp.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec

. 10, 1998) (mem. op., not de signa ted for publication) (pea ce bond alleg ed to be restra int on appellant’ s liberty expired on its own terms and rendered habea s
corpus a ppeal moot).
Her e, the ag ree d o rd er Aubrey signe d “dismissed with prejudice ” the enfor ceme nt

ac t i o n on the peac e bonds that wer e the core of Aubre y ’s mandamus petition ag ainst Steeg

. T h e
ag ree d order confirms the parties’ resolution of their disputes, specifie s how the bond amounts will be disbursed, and s t at es that Aubre y “re linquishes any and all claims he has or may have” to the
reta ined amount. Aubre y has put forth no response to Steeg ’s asser tion that the ag ree d order rende rs 1
this appea l moot, nor do we find any support for an arg ument to the contra ry . There is no longe r a justiciable controve rsy on these peac e bond order s war ranting resolution of this appea l, and as such we dismiss this appeal as moot.

J eff Rose, Chief J ustice
Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Goodwin a nd Bour land Dismissed as Moot Filed: June 17, 2015

We also note t hat t he peace bonds issued in 2013 have expi red on their own ter m s . S ee 1 Tex. Code Crim. P roc. a

rt. 7.03 (limiting dura tion of peac e bond to one y ear ).

2
Exhibit 23.1CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the amended Registration Statements (Forms S-3 No.333-71452-01 and 333-113977-01) and (Forms S-4 No. 333-60355-01 and 333-136801-01) of AIMCOProperties, L.P. and in the related Prospectuses of our reports dated February 29, 2008 withrespect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of AIMCO Properties, L.P., and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of AIMCO Properties, L.P., included inthis Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007./s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLPDenver, Colorado