If you are thinking of adding a storage space or renovating an existing one, it is important that you have a clear understanding of what's needed to setup a food storage room.
If you have no clue, then a simple Google search should help you out. To make things easy for you, continue reading and this article may be of a big help, as well.
The first factor that should be taken into consideration when you want to setup a new room is the availability of space. Adding a food storage room is a good idea, and it can only be fulfilled if your home has the right amount of space for it.
The space should not be too big, neither should it be too small. Basically, the size of the space you need is based on the amount of food you will store. Calculate by boxes and you could end up with the perfect measurement. A food storage space calculator should be able to provide the needed tool. Try this one: http://www. thestorageroom.com/storage-space-calculator.htm.
Setting up a food storage room is easy and you do not need to have any advanced carpentry skills to setup one. Generally, all you need to do is to prepare and clean the space, and then build some shelves. It is also actually possible to just buy pre-fabricated shelves. If you are going for the second option regarding the shelves, it would be a good idea to base the space measurement on the sizes of the shelves you are going to install.
Food storage is one of the main concerns of home owners. This is especially so if you have to store food and keep them dry and ready for use during emergencies. It can be really heartbreaking to find out that the food you have bought with your hard-earned money have been damaged or spoiled due to the lack of necessary storage option.
With the right-sized and effectively built storage room, you can rest assured that all the food that you have been saving for the rainy days will be there and ready whenever you and your family need them.
The key to food storage is rotation. You need a system where food can be rotated to avoid spoilage and waste. After your read, please give a quick comment/share and then jump over of our basement storage area for ideas and additional sources.
Hopefully, you have learned something useful from this article. If so, it would be a good idea to share with your friends on social media (like Facebook or Twitter). Who knows, one of your family members or closest friends might also be trying to figure out what's needed to setup a food storage room. By sharing, you would be able to help out other people the way you have been helped by this article.


Those Christmas lights- I love this polish suggested by our fan group. If you've been around you'll know I always do a night sky themed Christmas polish. I have such happy Christmas memories of Christmas Eve. It's a black jelly filled with multi chrome and iridescent Crystal chameleon flakes with holo flakes and holo microglitter. They 'light' up and sparkle on the nail like Christmas lights. A couple of the flakes even glow in the dark. One thing you need to know is this polish has an unpleasant aroma in the bottle but is fine on the nails. It's caused by the flakies within.


text:
Legal Aid - IPC Section 115 Abetment of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life-if offence not committed
Legal Aid - Indian Penal Code - IPC Section 115 Abetment of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life-if offence not committed
Whoever abets the commission of an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also
be liable to fine;
If act causing harm be done in consequence– and if any act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment, and which causes hurt to any person, is done, the abettor shall be liable to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine.
A instigates B to murder Z. The offence is not committed. If B had murdered Z, he would have been subject to the punishment of death or 1[imprisonment for life]. Therefore A is liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also to a fine; and if any hurt be done to Z in consequence of the abetment, he will be liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and to fine.
Para I
Punishment—Imprisonment for 7 years and fine—According as offence abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable—non-bailable—Triable by court by which offence abetted is triable—Non-compoundable.
Para II
Punishment—Imprisonment for 14 years and fine—According as offence abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable—non-bailable—Triable by court by which offence abetted is triable—Non-compoundable.
1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f.
1-1-1956).

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
As a public service, Hurwitz & Fine, P.C. is pleased to present this monthly newsletter providing summaries of and access to the latest premises liability decisions from the New York State and Federal courts. The primary purpose of this newsletter is to provide timely educational information and commentary for our clients and subscribers. In some jurisdictions, newsletters such as this may be considered Attorney Advertising.
If you know of others who may wish to subscribe to this free publication, or change your subscription status, please contact Jody E. Briandi at [email protected] or call 716-849-8900. All issues of Premises Pointers are listed on the firm website at www.hurwitzfine.com.
Todd C. Bushway
V. Christopher Potenza
Tessa R. Scott
Anastasia M. Stumpf
James L. Maswick
WHAT PREMISES POINTERS COVERS
Retail, Restaurant and Hospitality Industry
Snow/Ice Claims and Storm in Progress
Inadequate/Negligent Security
Inadequate Maintenance/Negligent Repair
Defective and Dangerous Conditions
Elevator and Escalator Accidents
Swimming Pool and Recreational Accidents
Dog Bites/Animal Liability
Negligent Supervision
Assumption of Risk
Limited Services Contracts
Indemnification Agreements
Tavern Owner Liability and Dram Shop
Homeowner Liability
Happy Fall and welcome new subscribers! I am sending this issue while heading home from Arkansas where I attended the Arkansas Trucking Seminar this past week held in Rogers, AR. In case you are wondering, in addition to practicing law in the area of premises liability, I also handle trucking and commercial transportation matters for clients (In fact, I may from time to time cover a case in that area as I'm sure some of you have transportation cases). The seminar covered a variety of great topics that cross over into most areas of general liability defense work, such as cellular and GPS tracking and spoliation of evidence (which we plan to cover in an upcoming Premises Pointers issue because it keeps coming up in the context of surveillance videos). With summer winding down, the Appellate Courts have been quiet (though we do have a case from the New York Court of Appeals that was issued yesterday) and hence not as many cases to report on as in prior issues, but no need to worry because all of the Courts will be in full swing in the coming months. In fact, I personally have two appeals pending in the Fourth Department that will be argued in January and February. One is an assumption of risk case involving a student participating in her high school musical and the other case involves notice (or lack thereof) in the context of an altercation that occurred on school grounds.
On the restaurant front, I came across an article today from The Washington Post about a Colorado lawsuit just filed against Starbucks claiming a plaintiff and her dog sustained serious burns due to scalding hot tea…click here for the article. The claim is that the lid on the cup was not properly secured and therefore came off when the cup was handed to the plaintiff, that the cup was not doubled, had no sleeve and that the tea was too hot. Starbuck's denies the allegations and claims there is surveillance video that disproves plaintiff's claims and establishes their employee did nothing wrong (assuming that is the case it certainly illustrates why it is so critical to maintain surveillance footage and that policies should be in place to review and save surveillance upon receiving notice of an incident).
Finally, a HUGE congratulations to Premises Pointers contributor and toxic torts guru Chris Potenza who obtained a defense verdict in Albany County Supreme Court in a lead paint exposure case last month. The plaintiff had a lead level of 38 while residing at the insured's property, which for those who do not practice in the area of lead exposure is high. Nice work Chris! And kudos to our friends at New York Central Mutual for having faith in their insured (and their defense counsel) and the gumption to try this case despite the significant risk of a high damages verdict. Chris has provided us with a detailed trial report in his column.
Please feel free to share this newsletter with friends and colleagues who would find it useful. We would love to add new subscribers! If you are interested in being added to our subscription list, just send me an e-mail at [email protected]. We are also available to provide training to any and all that may want some, on any premises liability topic, in person or as a webinar. Please call or email if this is of interest to you and your team.
1300 Liberty Building, Buffalo, NY 14202
535 Broad Hollow Rd., A-7, Melville, NY 11747
Corporate Woods, Albany, NY 12211
2577 Main Street, Lake Placid, NY 12946
Phone: 518-523-2441, 518-523-2442
Albion | Amherst | Niagara Falls | Palm Beach Gardens | Toronto
Hurwitz & Fine, P.C. is a full-service law firm providing legal services
throughout the State of New York
www.hurwitzfine.com
© Hurwitz & Fine, P.C. 2017 - All Rights Reserved
Retail, Restaurant and Hospitality Happenings Around New York State
09/14/17 Parietti v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals
06/22/16 Parietti v Wal-mart Stores, Inc.
This slip and fall case is a real head scratcher!
Before we get to the Court of Appeals decision, let's look at the Appellate Division decision that was appealed. The plaintiff was allegedly injured when she slipped and fell on a wet spot on the floor near an ice machine in defendant's store. The Appellate Division determined that the defendant met its burden and established it did not create the condition, nor did it have actual or constructive notice of it. To support this position, defendant submitted evidence it did not receive any written or oral complaints by customers or employees concerning water on the floor or of a leak in the ice machine. Defendant also submitted employee affidavits and video surveillance recordings demonstrating that its employees monitored the conditions at the front of the store just minutes before plaintiff's accident and no one observed water on the floor (this is key because as the moving party defendant was required to demonstrate when the last inspection of the area was, rather than rely on evidence of the general practice). In addition, the plaintiff testified that she did not see any water on the floor a few minutes before her fall. Based on this affirmative showing, the Appellate Division ruled that the Supreme Court should have granted defendant's motion and therefore reversed the decision.
Fast Forward to 2017 and the New York Court of Appeals. With little discussion or analysis, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division stating that triable issues of fact exist as to whether defendant "had notice of a hazardous condition and a reasonable amount of time to correct or warn about its existence." It is unclear what exactly the reversal turned on, but it certainly raises questions about what type of evidence is necessary on summary judgment. One would think employee affidavits establishing when the last inspection took place, the results of that inspection, surveillance video and testimony from the plaintiff would be sufficient, but not in this case!
08/23/2017 Gashi v. Abramson Brothers Incorporated
Summary judgment granted to property management agent who retained no maintenance or repair obligations upon leasing property to tenant ice-cream shop
The plaintiff was allegedly injured while standing on the sidewalk outside an empty storefront when he was struck by a door as it was opened from the inside. The premises were leased to Steve's 42nd Street LLC and were under renovation for use as an ice-cream store. The plaintiff sued the managing agent of the premises, the two individuals alleged to have opened the door, the tenants. All defendants moved for summary judgment and all motions were denied by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Appellate Division held that the managing agent was entitled to summary judgment because it had relinquished control of the premises to the tenants and was not contractually bound to maintain or repair the premises. However, the Supreme Court's decision was upheld as to the remaining defendants based on questions of fact.
Practice point: Understand the contractual obligations of the parties as contained in lease agreements, which will typically outline maintenance and repair obligations.
08/11/17 Reddy v. 488 3rd St. Owners Corp
Supreme Court, Kings County, New York
Expert Affidavit insufficient to establish defendant's entitlement to summary judgment in defective stairwell case
Plaintiff allegedly fell while attempting to descend a winding stairwell that connected the third and fourth floors in a Brooklyn building. Plaintiff claimed the staircase was defective because of non-uniform risers and inadequate winders. In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant argued that the stairwell was neither defective nor dangerous and submitted the affidavit of a licensed mechanical engineer who maintained the New York City Building Code did not apply due to the age of the building did not require the stairwell to be changed to become code compliant. The following was noted about the expert's affidavit: 1.) the expert's inspection was conducted 16 months after the alleged fall and there was no proof in the record that the conditions observed at that time of the inspection existed at the time of the fall; 2.) he opined that the premises had been in existence since 1880 and referenced an atlas of Brooklyn but did not attach any part of the atlas he relied upon; 3.) while he attached a diagram of the stairwell he did not explain his findings with regard to height and width differentials in the treads and risers; 4.) while he maintains code compliance not necessary, this is not determinative on the issue of whether the stairwell was dangerous or defective at the time of plaintiff's accident. Regarding the trivial defect argument advanced, defendants failed to so submit to submit photographs that accurately represented the accident site. The Court noted the 3 of the 4 photos submitted by defendants were of the stairwell generally and not the stair at issue and the photograph of that stair was too dark and grainy to show the actual condition of the step. The motion was ultimately denied because the Court concluded defendants failed to meet its burden and therefore did not consider the sufficiency of plaintiff's responding papers.
Practice point: The Record is critical to summary judgment! If you are relying on an expert affidavit, make sure the expert's opinions are supported and that somewhere in the Record there is proof that the conditions observed by the expert are indeed the conditions that existed at the time of the incident. In this case, defendants could have easily addressed this by submitting an affidavit from the building to verify there were no changes to the stairwell between the date of the incident and date of inspection. Furthermore, if you are relying on photographs, make sure they are of the area/condition in question and that they are clear and visible.
08/11/2017 Melia v. 50 Court Street Associates
Slip and fall on sidewalk abutting a store due to missing caulk between two sidewalk slabs resulting in a 1 inch gap was deemed a trivial defect that was not actionable
Believe it or not, I have personally handled my fair share of "missing calk" cases. It is a relatively common claim, particularly here in the Northeast where weather plays a role in sidewalk conditions. The plaintiff in this case claimed there was a 1 inch gap between the two sidewalk slabs due to the missing caulk. Defendants moved for summary judgment and argued the alleged defect was trivial, that they never received complaints about the gap and were aware of no prior incidents. Even the plaintiff, who regularly visited the store, testified he never noticed the gap. The Supreme Court denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed based on evidence submitted by defendants, including the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and photographs of the accident site, that the gap was trivial.
Practice point: Photographs are a key and necessary piece of evidence if you want to prevail on summary judgment. If they are not taken, you will be at a disadvantage when moving for summary judgment.
Welcome to September. Organization. Cooler nights. College Football. What I've noticed is the best part of the kids going back to school, especially now that my kids are older, is that it restores order to our home. By the end of the summer everything seems to get ragged – everyone's best intentions on projects and plans are crumbling and there is a rush to wring the last drops from the summer. The school schedule almost instantly rights that ship.
The late summer – early fall music calendar has been good to me as well. U2 came through Buffalo last week, allowing thousands of 40-50 year olds to relive the halcyon days of their youth for a night. The 1980's musical theme continues over the next month or so with tickets for 3 good shows featuring alternative/punk/new wave luminaries X, the Pixies and Psychedelic Furs. X and the Pixies need to be in the Hall of Fame. And for those worried about losing touch with new music, I would suggest checking out more current acts like Beach House, American Aquarium, the Pollies and Craig Finn. All good stuff.
On to the cases. As is typical, court calendars are light this time of year, but there are a couple of interesting cases to review.
NEW YORK GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW §9–103 – RECREATIONAL USE STATUTE
07/07/17 Cummings v. Manville
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department examines whether the property was appropriate for the activity ongoing at the time of the injury and whether, therefore, New York's recreational use statute served as a defense to the suit.
General Obligations Law §9–103 is New York's "Recreational Use Statute", which was passed to entice property owners to allow use of their properties for certain delineated recreational or sporting activities by limiting those property owner's risk of suit for negligence claims arising out of the listed uses. The activities specifically enumerated in the statute are:
Hunting;
Fishing;
Canoeing;
Boating;
Trapping;
Hiking;
Cross-country skiing;
Tobogganing;
Speleological activities;
Bicycle riding;
Hang gliding;
Motorized vehicle operation for recreational purposes;
Snowmobile operation;
Cutting or gathering of wood for non-commercial purposes;
The training of dogs; and
Organized gleaning
(Don't worry, I looked it up – Organized Gleaning is defined as "the harvest of an agricultural crop that has been donated by an owner, lessee, or occupant of premises or occupant of a farm by persons who are sponsored by a charitable not-for-profit organization." New York Agriculture & Markets Law §71-y.)
Cummings was injured when he struck a pothole and crashed while riding a four wheel all-terrain vehicle on a gravel road located on property owned by the defendant. In response to the plaintiff's suit, the property owner raised General Obligations Law §9–103 as a defense.
The case does not break any new ground but does give a good overview of how the statute is applied. At the outset, the Court noted the basic elements necessary to raise the issue. These include:
As the party raising the defense, the defendant bears the initial burden of showing the elements are met;
The defendant must show that he/she was the owner, lessor or occupant of the property at issue;
That the injured plaintiff was engaged in one of the activities enumerated in the statute; and
That the property was in fact suitable for that enumerated activity.
In Cummings, there was no dispute regarding the defendant's ownership or control of the property or that riding an all-terrain vehicle was a covered activity. The issued addressed by the Court was whether the property was conducive to the activity.
The court refers to several other decisions arising from the use of all-terrain or dirt bikes to highlight that the focus need be on that particular portion of the property where the incident occurred and not the general characterization for the entire property. Another factor is whether the property in fact has been used for that activity in the past.
The road at issue here was a private roadway used for what the court deemed "residential" purposes, which included access to residences and other properties and that a school bus on occasion used the road as well. The parties offered testimony about whether the roadway was used by the residents to access the area versus how often the roadway was used for all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles.
Focusing on the residential versus recreational purpose of the roadway, the fact that application on these type of facts would allow the defense for all manner of rural roadways and the fact that this type of property the legislature intended to induce property owners to open up for recreational use by removing potential liability, the court declined to apply the defense to this case.
The court did distinguish the case from the Court of Appeals decision Albright v. Metz, 88 N.Y.2d 656 (1996). In that case, plaintiff was injured when the dirt bike he was operating crashed from a pathway into a landfill on the property. In that case, the court held that while the property was generally used as a landfill, the pathway itself was appropriate for dirt bike use and therefore the defense was applicable and barred the claim.
It should be noted that the Court's decision to not allow the recreational use statute as a defense is not the end of the case – the case will now be decided as a general negligence case.
WHETHER A TIMELY NOTICE OF CLAIM GAVE NOTICE OF A PARTICULAR CAUSE OF ACTION
09/13/17 Lipani v. Hiawatha Elementary School
Plaintiff was injured when she tripped over a rolled up mat as she was exiting a school building. The school was being used as polling location and plaintiff was exiting the building after voting. The incident occurred during a power failure, which had affected the lighting in the building.
Plaintiff then timely filed a Notice of Claim and the school district conducted an exam pursuant to General Municipal Law §50-h. The matter was then placed into suit, with plaintiff claiming that the poor lighting conditions caused by the power failure were a factor in causing her injury.
Following discovery, defendant school district moved for summary judgment. One of the grounds for the motion was that the Notice of Claim did not include and description or allegation regarding lighting conditions. The Notice of Claim only stated that the plaintiff had been "caused to fall as a result of a rolled up mat" located within several feet from the entrance doors. Plaintiff's Bill of Particulars had alleged that the rolled up mat was located in a "dimly lit" area. The lower court rejected the school district's argument, a decision then upheld by the Appellate Division.
The court began its analysis by noting it had the authority to look beyond the Notice of Claim itself to determine if the defendant had adequate notice of the underlying facts and circumstances and basis of the claim made against it and to allow for the correction of a good faith mistake or omission. The court noted here that the addition of the "dimly lit" allegation in the Bill of Particulars did not substantially change the allegation against the defendant. Further, the court noted that (1) the issue of the lighting as a contributing factor in causing the accident had been addressed by counsel during the §50-h exam of the plaintiff and (2) the school's own incident report prepared following plaintiff's fall noted that the area was dark because of the power failure. Based upon this record, the Appellate Division Court upheld the lower court's determination that the school district had adequate notice of the claim against it.
LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM – Lack of Prejudice to the Respondent
06/08/17 Kranick v. Niskayuna Central School District
Plaintiff was injured when he stepped into a depression in a school parking lot while exiting a bus. The sole issue on appeal was whether the district was prejudiced by the delay and/or whether the district had actual knowledge of the circumstances underlying the claim. In reversing the lower court's denial of the petitioner's application, the Appellate Division noted that the claimant, at his examination conducted pursuant to General Municipal Law §50-h, had identified the exact location in the parking lot where the incident occurred on a map of the location and testified that the condition of the parking lot at that area was unchanged from the time of the incident. The court also noted (although it was not supplied with copies) that there were a set of photographs of the alleged defect in the parking lot where plaintiff fell that were taken about a month after the incident and submitted by claimant as part of a worker's compensation claim.
Based upon this record, the Appellate Division held that the school district was not prejudiced by the failure to timely file a notice of claim. It is interesting to note that the motion was not brought until after the General Municipal Law §50-h hearing was conducted. That testimony served as a material factor in support of the petitioner's application. One has to wonder if that testimony had not yet been taken if the result would have been the same, since that testimony served as the basis for establishing an awareness of the specific location of the incident and the source of petitioner's statement that the alleged defect remained both present and unchanged.
LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM – Accident or incident report was sufficient notice to the respondent of the basis of the claim against it.
03/31/17 Kennedy v. Oswego City School Dist.
In the least two issues, I reported on cases from the Appellate Division, Second Department addressing the filing of late Notices of Claim and whether injury or incident reports, which detailed what had happened and what the injury were, in fact sufficient to give the municipal entity actual notice of the basis for the proposed claim. (D.M. v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free School District and Maldonado v. City of New York). In both of those cases, the applications were denied on the basis that the factual reporting in the contemporaneous reporting did not give notice of the alleged theory of liability.
Because of the late summer lull of cases, I thought I would take a look at the other Appellate Departments to see what they have written on the issue. The Fourth Department's March, 2017 decision in Kennedy presents a similar case scenario.
Kennedy was a worker injured in fall from at a construction site at a school building. The application for a late notice of claim was premised on the accident report prepared by the claimant's employer, which claimant contended had been provided to the district's construction manager. After determining that claimant had not established that the report in fact gave any notice to the district because the record did not support that the claim that the construction manager was the agent of the district. Putting that aside, the court then held the accident report did not give the district actual notice of the claim because the narrative on the report "described the underlying occurrence and claimant's injuries in general terms and made no connection between the accident and any liability on the part of respondent."
From a practical perspective, it is clear that the existence of an incident, accident or other report does not equate to a claimant being granted leave to serve the late notice – the focus needs to be what's in the report. The mere happening of the incident and the fact of an injury is not the same as providing the basis for the alleged liability. For example, a report indicating a person fell on uneven ground outside a building does not give notice that the potential plaintiff will claim that poorly designed landscaping and property maintenance lead to poor runoff, which lead to the condition.
I have always thought this area of the law is built upon somewhat of a legal fiction and these cases do nothing the changes that view. If, on review of an application to serve a late notice of claim, the incident or accident report's recitation of the injury and basic facts are not sufficient to apprise the potential defendant of the basis of the claims sought against it, how is the defendant any more protected if the notice of claim was served on day 85 instead of on day 135 or day 160? The incident report is still devoid of the necessary investigation, and in a case with a transient or changing condition (i.e. the construction site in Kennedy - the work continued, the scaffolding and other equipment was modified, moved, removed, etc.) the defendant is still without any real ability to look at the specific details of the accident location and potential causes of the incident.
It's nice to be home (and in the office I guess) and back in the routine after a hectic August, which included a week and half on trial in Albany, followed up with a week at Crystal Beach, Ontario with my wife and kids. While it was great to be back on trial, it certainly does not compare to a week with toes in the sand watching six-year old big sister and her twin four year-old brothers enjoying every minute of beach life. As a wise 80's icon once said, "Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop to look around for a while, you might miss it."
As for the trial, we were fortunate enough to be asked by our friends at New York Central Mutual to try a not-so-ordinary lead-paint exposure case in Albany County. Plaintiff had a very high blood lead level of 38 ug/dl shortly after moving into the insured's property in 1996. The insured, however, was not a career landlord, but a first-time landlord who, in fact, lived in the same apartment with his own young children immediately before the plaintiff's tenancy. As is the case with most trials, credibility ruled the day. While the insured was strong, relatable, and credible on the witness stand, plaintiff, in my opinion, lost the jury by failing to acknowledge head-on her prior and concurrent lead exposures at different properties, as well as her lengthy, well-documented history of psychiatric care, family abuse, and trauma as having impacted her academic performance. The end result was a defense verdict finding the insured was not negligent! Although the jury never reached the issue of causation, our defense neuropsychologist, David Masur, Ph.D., was an excellent witness who bolstered the overall credibility of our defense. Credit goes to NYCM for their faith in their insured and willingness to defend him, despite the risk and costs.
As for the appellate decisions, there are just a couple of interest, including a surprising decision from the First Department where the court ruled that a prior release for an asbestos-related injury did not preclude a future claim for asbestos related mesothelioma.
8/29/2017 In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, South v. Chevron Corp, et al.
First Department finds that a General Release executed to resolve prior non-malignant claim did not preclude later claim for asbestos-related mesothelioma.
The decedent plaintiff alleged that his mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos during his 37-year career in the Merchant Marine, and that defendant, Chevron/Texaco, manufactured, produced, sold, supplied, merchandised, and/or distributed asbestos-containing products that were located on the ships plaintiff worked on. Texaco moved to dismiss on the basis that plaintiff had previously executed a General Release to Texaco in a 1997 asbestos-related lawsuit. The Release at-issue included any "bodily and/or personal injuries, sickness or death" allegedly arising from plaintiff's asbestos exposure and acknowledged that the "long term effects of exposure" to asbestos might result in "obtaining a new and different diagnosis from the diagnosis as of the date of this Release."
Because plaintiff's second lawsuit was brought pursuant to the Jones Act (46 U.S.C. § 30104 et seq.), the prior Release faced the strict scrutiny of Section 5 of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) (45 U.S.C. § 55). Section 5 of the FELA requires the Court to apply strict scrutiny to Releases and prohibits agreements that exempt common carriers from liability. Under that standard, plaintiffs asserted that, at the time plaintiff signed the prior release, he did not have mesothelioma and was not aware of the risk of mesothelioma as a potential injury from his asbestos exposure.
Since this was an admiralty case, Texaco had the burden of establishing that the Release was enforceable and that plaintiff fully understood his rights and received adequate consideration at the time of execution. The court found that the Release at-issue did not explicitly mention that plaintiff was forgoing any claim against Texaco for mesothelioma; that the 1997 Complaint, while making generalized allegations that plaintiff had been exposed to asbestos, was exceedingly vague as to whether plaintiff had actually contracted an asbestos-related disease; and, that in the court's opinion, the consideration received in exchange for the prior Release was "meager."
While this decision is surely troublesome, we should remember that the prior Release was scrutinized under the heightened FELA standard. It is also worth noting that, although the FELA is a federal law, Court interpretations of how the FELA actually applies to Releases varies amongst federal circuits (i.e. the known-risk approach vs. the known-injury approach). Nonetheless, this case should be a caution to all of us to make sure our Releases are tight and explicit.
8/30/2017 Matute v. New York City Housing Authority
Second Department finds defendant could not establish that it did not have notice of lead paint hazards based on local administrative code of the City of New York.
In October 2003, the plaintiff, an infant, allegedly sustained injuries from exposure to lead-based paint while living in an apartment of a multiple dwelling owned by the defendant, New York City Housing Authority. During the period of the plaintiff's alleged injuries, Local Law No. 1 (1982) of City of New York (Administrative Code of City of NY former § 27-2013[h]) was in effect. Local Law No. 1, established constructive notice of a hazardous lead condition by requiring the owners of multiple-dwelling units to remove or cover any lead-based paint in units inhabited by children six years of age or younger. While on its face, it appears that the law eased the plaintiff's burden to establish defendant's constructive notice as set forth in by the well-established Chapman factors, this case should only apply to New York City cases that arose while Local Law No. 1 (1982) was in effect. While I am sure some upstate plaintiff's counsel will try to apply this "new" standard outside NYC, it should have no bearing on upstate New York claims.
You may think that after covering all of these dog bite cases, I would be forever afraid of getting one myself. However, this weekend I threw caution --and probably all my future paychecks-- to the wind and I adopted a puppy! He is a lovely 9 week old rescue that we named Remy. They tell us his mother was an Akbash and his father is believed to be an Anatolian Shepherd. If you know anything about these two breeds, they are HUGE! Both breeds have expected weights between 90 and 140 lbs. That is a lot of dog food. Luckily, he appears to be a runt. I will keep you posted on his growth and how many pairs of shoes have been sacrificed to his teething phase.
In other news, the Courts have rendered their decision on a few really interesting cases. I extended my coverage to cases involving lifeguards because it flowed naturally from our discussion of pools. In this instance, New York State was sued following personal injuries sustained after a person went swimming in the ocean. The Court held that New York did not have a responsibility to warn swimmers of threats arising from the natural condition of the ocean floor. That seems entirely reasonable to me.
I did not completely agree with the Second Department's holding in Gillardo, at the first reading but I begrudgingly changed my mind. There the Second Department concluded that defendants could not establish as a matter of law that it was open and obvious that one could not stand on a "floor" crafted from sheetrock. Now, the reason I didn't completely agree with the decision is because of the sheetrock's location. It was in the attic. My grandmother had a similar situation in her attic. It was pretty clear that it was not a floor for walking. That being said, when you get a court's decision you have the disadvantage of not having all the facts. I am sure the Court considered the appearance of the floor, how accessible the area was, and if it was necessary to traverse this section.
Last, but certainly not least, we have Martinez, who seems to be the most unlucky bloke. Have you ever read those "News of the Weird" posts where a robber stops to sign up for a contest during his heist? This case sort of reminds me of that. Here, Plaintiff was shot in the hallway of his apartment building. He called the police, who were happy to arrest him because of an outstanding warrant. Then while the guy was being stitched up in the hospital the police went into his apartment looking for the gun wielding intruder. They didn't find the assailant, but they did find some questionable substances. Oye! Okay, did you need all that backstory? Probably not… but it sure is fun. At the end of the day the Plaintiff sued his landlord for failure to prevent gun toting assailants from shooting up the place. The Court, having no sympathy for the Plaintiff, decided that since police never caught the shooter there was no evidence he was actually an intruder. Kind of adds some salt to the gun-shot wound, doesn't it?
08/23/17 Gallardo v Gilbert
Plaintiff stepped on "floor" which was a piece of sheetrock, Second Department denied the homeowner's motion because it was not clear that the dangerous condition was obvious as a matter of law
The plaintiff was injured while performing cleaning services in a home owned by the defendants (the homeowners). As the plaintiff was cleaning the attic, she stepped off a plywood landing and fell through the sheetrock ceiling of the garage below. The plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, the homeowners to recover damages for her injuries. After discovery, the homeowners moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court granted the homeowners' motion, and the Second Department reversed.
Landowners have a duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition. However, there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition which, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous. "While the issue of whether a hazard is . . . open and obvious is generally fact-specific and thus a jury question, a court may determine that a risk was open and obvious as a matter of law when the established facts compel that conclusion, and may do so on the basis of clear and undisputed evidence."
Here, the homeowners failed to establish their entitlement to judgment a matter of law, as they failed to establish that the insufficient weight-bearing capacity of the sheetrock ceiling was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous as a matter of law. Since the homeowners failed to make the requisite showing, the sufficiency of the plaintiff's papers in opposition need not be considered.
08/23/17 Courtney v State of New York
The State has no duty to warn swimmers of threats arising from natural conditions on the ocean floor.
The claimant allegedly was injured when he struck his head while diving into waves at Jones Beach State Park. The claimant moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and the defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim, arguing that it had no duty to warn, that it satisfied its general duty to provide adequate supervision of the beach, and that the claimant assumed the risks inherent in swimming in the ocean. The Court of Claims granted the defendant's cross motion and denied the claimant's motion.
Governmental entities owe a duty to "act as a reasonable person in maintaining their property in a reasonably safe condition." Additionally, there is also a "recognized duty of general supervision," which must be "adequate."
Here, defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it had a sufficient number of experienced and competent lifeguards, who reacted to the situation in accordance with proper procedure. Furthermore, the defendant had no duty to warn swimmers of threats arising from the existence of "natural, transitory conditions of the ocean floor."
08/23/17 Martinez v City of New York
Plaintiff can only recover against a landlord for injuries sustained following an assault from an intruder.
The plaintiff was shot in the leg by an unknown assailant in the hallway of his apartment building, which was owned by the defendant New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). Plaintiff was transported to the hospital. Adding insult to injury, the Police realized there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest. Unfortunately for Plaintiff the fun didn't stop there. Police, who had been looking through Plaintiff's apartment for the shooter, found what was believed to be drug paraphernalia. Notably, all the lab tests came back negative for drugs.
The plaintiff commenced this action against NYCHA and the City of New York, for negligence for failing to provide a properly functioning lock on the rear door of the apartment building where he was shot and in failing to secure the premises from intruders.
NYCHA moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff was unable to prove that its alleged negligence was a proximate cause of his injuries. NYCHA also contested the plaintiff's assertion that the door lock was not operating properly on the date of the incident.
NYCHA relied on the testimony of the subject building's caretaker and recent inspections prior to the incident. Additionally, the plaintiff testified that he did not know the condition of the rear door lock.
In premises security cases it is necessary to have a causal link between a landlord's culpable failure to provide adequate security and a tenant's injuries. The link can be established only if the assailant gained access to the premises through a negligently maintained entrance. Notably, plaintiffs can recover only if the assailant was an intruder"
Here, NYCHA met its burden by submitting evidence that the rear door lock was operable and not broken and by demonstrating that the assailant's identity remains unknown – and therefore was not necessarily an intruder. In opposition the plaintiff failed to raise a an issue of fact.
Significantly, since NYCHA, and not the City, is the owner of the building where the shooting took place, the City could not be held liable under the same theory as that advanced against NYCHA.
Snow and Ice, Storm in Progress, Tavern Owner/Dramshop Liability and Other Timely Topics
By: Anastasia M. Stumpf [email protected]
Now that school is back in session, it seems fitting that this month's cases read like law school final exam questions. When I was a student first learning about the law's evidentiary and procedural rules, I recall feeling as if I was playing a new board game without ever having read the rules—it was frustrating, disheartening, and sometimes downright circular. This month's cases not only highlight how much of a law-nerd I am, but also how a thorough understanding of civil procedure can cut directly to the heart of a case without a jury hearing any of the facts. The first case, for example, deals with the consequences of failing to properly comply with a municipality's written notice law; the second, deals with a federal court's power to decide cases involving the allegedly negligent actions of the employees of a federal agency.
08/30/2017 Morreale v. Town of Smithtown
Town's failure to remove snow was a passive omission, not an affirmative act that would otherwise excuse Plaintiff's failure to comply with the municipality's prior written notice requirement.
Plaintiff, who was walking her dog in a public park, slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk. After bringing suit against the park's owner, the Town of Smithtown, the Town successfully moved for summary judgment by arguing that, pursuant to its written notice law, it could not be liable where it had not received the requisite prior, written notice of the alleged defect or dangerous condition. On appeal, the Second Department reiterated the general rule that "[a] municipality [that] has enacted a prior written notice law, [may] not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by a defect or dangerous condition which comes within the ambit of the law unless it received written notice of the alleged defect or dangerous condition, or an exception to the written notice requirement applies." Recognized exceptions to prior written notice laws were noted to include situations where the defendant-municipality actually created the hazard through some affirmative, negligent act or where a special use confers a special benefit upon the municipality. In the case then at-bar, the Second Department held that the Town's failure to remove snow or ice from the area where the Plaintiff fell was a passive omission, not an affirmative act of negligence qualifying as an exception from the Town's prior written notice law. Instead, because the Town had not received prior, written notice of a hazard or defect, and because the Town had not affirmatively created the hazard, it could not bear any liability.
08/15/17 Farley v. United States
United States District Court Western District of New York
The Court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction where Defendant, the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), established application of the discretionary-function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act.
This is a complicated one, so bear with me. Mr. Farley, a security officer employed by Asset Protection & Security, initiated suit after he was assaulted by a detainee at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility in Batavia, New York. Under a contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a federal law enforcement agency affiliated with the Department of Homeland Security, Asset Protection provided unarmed custody officer services at the facility. While Asset Protection officers were generally responsible for maintaining order and protecting the health and well-being of detainees, ICE maintained a presence in the facility as well, retaining decision-making authority over detainee security classifications, detainee housing decisions, and the dissemination of certain detainee information. The incident occurred during the course, and within the scope of, Mr. Farley's job as a security officer.
When the detainee who assaulted Mr. Farley first arrived at the facility, ICE classified him as a "Level 3" (the highest security level) because of a prior domestic assault conviction as well as a history of mental health issues. Given the Level 3 designation, the detainee was dressed in a red uniform and placed in a special, segregated housing unit. Although there was no documentation of any direct threats uttered by the detainee, it was after a number of disciplinary issues, and a stint in the facility's segregated housing unit, that the detainee at-issue assaulted Mr. Farley, causing a broken nose, a neck injury, and permanent traumatic brain injury.
In filing his lawsuit, Mr. Farley argued, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, that Defendant, more specifically ICE, negligently operated the detention facility and ultimately caused his injuries. In response, the Defendant argued that the Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims because an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act applied.
A court may not hear a case unless it has the authority to make decisions about the subject-matter underlying the case. Federal district courts, for example, cannot exercise any authority over a case unless there is a statutory or constitutional basis for the court's jurisdiction. Where the defendant is the United States government, the Court must have specific authority to hear a case because the federal government is generally shielded from liability by the principle of sovereign immunity, which is a legal principle generally holding that a government cannot be sued without its consent. To proceed against a federal defendant, the courts generally have no authority (or, rather, the courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction), unless a governmental waiver, like the Federal Tort Claims Act, exists.
The Federal Tort Claims Act evinces the narrow circumstances in which the federal government is willing to waive its immunity and be sued. More particularly, the Act allows civil actions for money damages to proceed "for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." Despite this seemingly broad waiver of the government's sovereign immunity, Congress has also carved out a number of exceptions. The government will not be liable, for example, for the negligence of independent contractors like Asset Protection, nor will it be liable the discretionary-function exception applies.
The discretionary-function exception prohibits lawsuits against the federal government that are "based upon an act or omission of an employee…exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such state statute or regulation be valid, or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abuse." To determine whether the discretionary-function exception applies, Courts will apply the Berkovitz-Gaubert test, which holds that the United States will remain immune from suit "if two conditions are met: (1) the acts alleged to be negligent must be discretionary, in that they involve an 'element of judgment or choice' and are not compelled by statute or regulation and (2) the judgment or choice in question must be grounded in considerations of public policy or susceptible to policy analysis." The first prong is intended to determine whether the allegedly negligent act violated a mandatory regulation or policy that allowed the governmental actor no room to exercise her own judgment or choice. The requirement of judgment or choice cannot, for example, be fulfilled where the actor was compelled by a statute, regulation, or policy that specifically prescribed a course of action to be followed. The second prong then requires the court to determine whether the employee's judgment involved any policy considerations. The focus of the second prong is on the nature of the actions taken and whether those actions are susceptible to a policy analysis.
In Mr. Farley's case, the Court determined that Plaintiffs were really advancing three different types of negligence—first, that ICE was negligent in failing to disseminate information regarding the detainee's violent propensities; second, that ICE negligently released the detainee from the segregated housing unit; and third, a negligent guard theory (i.e. negligence arising from lack of proper care while implementing or designing an official policy and/or from individual "carelessness, laziness, and inattention"). The Court then went on to assess whether the discretionary-function exception applied to each type of negligence. After finding that the negligent guard theory did not apply at all, the Court found, that the actions taken by ICE employees satisfied both prongs of the discretionary-function exception, thereby restoring the government's immunity and leaving the court without jurisdiction to decide the case.
September means back to school! While it has been some time since I had homework or needed to cram for a test, the crispness of the air always seems to signal a back to school attitude in the legal profession. Cases which have sat dormant rumble to life, plaintiffs' attorneys having returned from their vacations, and the Courts begin issuing decisions at a higher rate of speed. While this will undoubtedly lead us to more elevator and escalator decisions in cases soon, I did not locate any decisions which have come out in the last month which I believed were worth reporting to you. This issue will feature elevator cases from earlier in 2017 that are worth reviewing, but without a common theme as we have had previously. Some of this month's cases range into products liability and labor law territory, but involve alleged injuries with elevators.
Also, by way of a personal update, I write this article after completing my stretching routine and spending some quality time with my foam roller. I completed my first ever 70.3 Ironman triathlon in Lake Placid on Sunday, September 10. The race was a 1.2 mile swim, followed by a 56 mile bike ride and then capped with a 13.1 mile run, a half marathon. While I had a good swim and a great bike, my run fell apart about halfway through, as I struggled with cramping calf muscles. Lots of walking followed, but I was able to finish the race in 6 hours and 24 minutes. I also had great support on the course, from my wife, friends and family and just friendly and familiar faces from town. On the run course, when I needed the exhortations the most, I was blessed to have lots of Lake Placid locals cheering me on – it made it a true home race for me! A nice small town benefit!
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or just to say hey – [email protected] or (518) 523-2441.
03/15/17 Versace v. 1540 Broadway L.P.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Successful Except for Potentially Defective Shim and Failure to Warn Causes of Action
Plaintiff, an elevator mechanic, was allegedly hurt when an elevator that he had been tasked to repair suddenly dropped with him inside. This incident allegedly occurred because a defective shim had caused the guide shoe to crack and because of the failure of a low pressure switch. A "shim" in this case was a piece bolted between the guide shoes and the elevator cab to create a snug fit between the guide shoes and elevator cab. Defendants provided evidence that the low pressure switch and the shim were not defective because of two inspections by the City of New York, including after it was returned to service after having been repaired, and showing that the low pressure switch was tested every two years by the city. The plaintiff failed to raise a fact issue as regards the defective low pressure switch.
However, plaintiff did raise an issue of fact as regards the potentially defective shim and whether there was a failure to warn. Plaintiff's expert stated that a cracked shoe caused the elevator car to get wedged in the hoistway, which matched what plaintiff described as what had occurred. This opinion was corroborated by an engineer for the defendant, who testified that in the design of the elevator, the car could come out of the rails if the guide shoe cracked while the elevator was descending. The engineer also indicated that a similar guide shoe had cracked because of over tightening of the bolts and the shim had been redesigned, but customers had not been told.
Plaintiff's labor law claims pursuant to Labor Law 240(1) were dismissed because any securing device would have defeated the purpose of the plaintiff's work in riding in the elevator.
05/11/17 Vilella v. Witkoff Group, LLC
Plaintiff's Complaint Dismissed on Theory of Liability Which Amounted to Constructive Failure to Discover Defect
The plaintiff was injured when he was inspecting an elevator in defendants' building. The governor cable of the elevator snapped and hit the plaintiff. The work ticket summaries for the elevator for at least six months prior to the accident did not indicate any issues with the governor cable, a fact conceded by the plaintiff. The Court found the plaintiff's position, that the presumed defect in the governor cable should have been discovered, despite the work ticket summaries and the lack of complaints of the governor cable, too speculative to meet his burden.
The First Department unanimously reversed the trial court's decision denying the motion and granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the complaint.
04/26/17 Esquivel v. 2707 Creston Realty, LLC
Fall in Elevator Motor Room Leads to Mixed Bag for Defendants on Appeal
Plaintiff's decedent was an elevator mechanic working in a residential building owned by the defendants. Working in the elevator motor room, he accessed the room via its only method of entry – a fixed, permanent ladder. He began to descend the ladder when he slipped off of one of the metal rungs, causing him to fall and become injured. Plaintiff move for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action and defendant cross moved for to dismissed causes of action based on Labor Law 200 and 240(1) and common law negligence.
The Second Department found that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied. The defendant failed to establish prima facie that the plaintiff's decedent was not involved in a covered activity when injured. The Court noted that the work repairing a malfunctioning elevator car supported plaintiff's allegations along these lines. The ladder here was also a safety device under the Labor Law as well.
The Appellate Division also found that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence claims, as there was no evidence they had created the allegedly dangerous condition, or had actual or constructive notice. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.


Ongoing Fes is a month-long lineup of autumn events including live music, dance, experimental film, performance festivals, and more. This year's Fes features sketch comedy.
Please see the Japanese website for information on more events.


Brenda Tharp of Independence Township and David Schwarz of Raccoon Township are the parents of a daughter, Emma Marie Schwarz, born Aug. 12 at The Medical Center, Beaver. Emma weighed 8 pounds, 12 ounces.
Grandparents are John Tharp and Mary Tharp, both of Independence Township, and Jim and Sondra Schwarz of Raccoon Township.


The SQOOM for Man device could only come from Germany. Or Italy. Or maybe France. Anyhoo, it's some kind of anti-wrinkle gidget which comes with a 'treatment program', some fancy creams and lots of testimonials from fresh faced metro-urbanites with trendy names like Fabio and Sven. For €995.00 you get a bunch of techno-babble and enough wrinkle data to sink a plastic surgeon. There's even a Swarovski encrusted 'luxury' model for €1255.00 which says it all really.
This innovative function combines the ionisation (iontophoresis) with the ultrasound (sonophoresis) and thus increases the effect of methods by multiples. This effect improves the own collagen and elastin production significantly and enables the valuable effective agents to penetrate the connective tissue of the middle and lower skin layers easily in order to activate their tightening and regenerating effect in these layers. This way wrinkles are tightened in a most advanced and efficient way and the connective tissue is regenerated.


text:
Author`s name Dmitry Sudakov
Elderly Pedophile Tracked by His Grown-up Victims in Ukraine
Society » Real life stories
Without any assistance from law enforcement agencies, Saint Petersburg residents tracked their former principal who was earlier suspected of pedophilia but managed to escape the responsibility. Now the pervert who practiced school sex orgies for years is active in the Ukrainian segment of the Internet, The Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper wrote.
Former students found 50-year old Igor Sukharev at a gay dating website where he posted his profile. Although now the school pedophile has a different last name, Ivanov.
"I live in Mukachevo. I can't find a decent guy here. I am hoping I can find someone in Kiev where I visit often. I don't stay there for long but am ready to do it," says Sukharev-Ivanov in his profile.
There are two Sukharev's pictures on the website. One shows him in a swimming pool, the other one – in a café. The caption goes: "That's how we are going to meet."
It seems that the sex-scandal hero named in a much publicized criminal case is not even hiding and is not afraid of criminal prosecution.
Meanwhile, Igor Sukharev still has an ill name in School #410 located near the famous Ekaterininsky park in Pushkin. The homosexual was in charge of the school for 11 years, and was once disclosed as a dangerous pedophile.
The scandal took off when the principal gave his laptop to high school students to help them with the preparation of their graduation party. According to the Komsomolskaya Pravda, the students couldn't help but check the content of the principal's computer. One of the folders contained a real porn archive. On the pictures there was Sukharev accompanied by naked boys and young men.
Soon CDs with the pictures were distributed to the entire school. The students' parents got a hold of the pictures and sent them to the prosecutor's office.
However, the criminal case was suddenly closed, Sukharev quickly resigned and left for Mukachevo, a town in West Ukraine.
The newspaper sent official inquiries to the Saint Petersburg prosecution office and to the Prosecutor General Office of the Russian Federation. The paper demanded that they conduct an investigation, find out why the case was closed, and reopen it.
One of the principal's former students told about the pedophile's sex games. The details make one shudder even years later. According to the young man, who preferred to remain anonymous, almost everyone knew or suspected that Igor Sukharev was a pedophile.
The children openly discussed that the principal was gay and liked young boys. They told their parents about it, but to no effect. Only once was Sukharev visited by the father of a student who received obvious hints from the principal. But at the time, the conflict was covered up and the student just transferred to another school.
"Some kids were just transferred to other schools, but for the most part everyone turned a blind eye to the issue. Our school had a good reputation, everyone entered a University after graduation," said a former student.
The kids had a traditional reaction to their parents' silence – they wrote on the walls and the road "Klyopa – faggot," "Principal – homo." That was it.
"Klyopa is Sukharev's nickname," explained the former student.
The pedophile continued his work as a principal for 11 years.
He closed off the hallways and ran around naked
According to the former student, orgies in the school building were quite frequent. The principal would tell his colleagues he had a lot of work to do and that he had to stay late, but in reality he prepared for his next sex party.
The events usually occurred in his office and in the school hallways.
"Sukharev enjoyed exposing his genitals. He would close off the first floor and made me and other students walk around naked. He would walk around naked himself, too," the young man said.
The pedophile had little shame in organizing very intimate photo sessions. "He liked to be photographed while he was screwing us," said one of the victims.
These were the pictures that the high school students found on the principal's laptop. According to the newspaper, it seemed like they knew what was in there; otherwise they wouldn't have hacked the password to the protected folders.
"It always ended with sex on the floor. Sukharev used to throw a big blanket on the floor," the boy continued. According to the student, the pedophile made the boys perform oral sex and then exchanged roles with his victims. After the children would leave, "the principal looked at the pictures on his computer and bragged about them."
The principal was careful – he tried not to involve his students in his photo sessions. He normally used prostitute boys for those purposes. Usually the principal invited two to four boys to his orgies.
"There were school children there too, but not often," said the boy. To make the boys more cooperative, the principal would give them alcohol.
In the daytime there were always boys in the principal's office. He invited them under any excuse – software installation, papers filing. He would offer them coffee, tea and chocolate. He never paid for the daytime visits, but paid to his night dates.
According to the former student, the amounts varied from one to three thousand rubles.
The student suggested that bribes were an additional source of income for the principal. "They say he collected bribes for school admission, for good grades," the boy said. The principal was given expensive presents – laptops, cameras, alcohol, colognes, gold, DVD recorders.
"Once he was showing off a thick stack on 100-dollar bills," said the former student.
The pedophile was very active during school outings. Sukharev liked to accompany students for tours, and once, according to the student, he "put his hands of the sleeping kids' crotch in the bus on the way home."
Sometimes the principal accompanied children on tours abroad, for example, Paris.
The newspaper says that it is hardly possible to confirm all of the details of the boy's story, however, there is more than enough evidence for an investigation.
"Sukharev used to call the boys he had sex with "bunny rabbits," the victim explained. The principal used to show him pictures saying "Look at me screwing these bunny rabbits."
When the justice tried to punish Sukharev, he hired a good attorney he consulted before his orgies.
"A fat bearded guy driving a Lexus," the boy described. "He explained to Sukharev that the Criminal Code allows sexual contact with people over 14 years of age. Follow this rule and you have nothing to be afraid of."
Then the age was raised to 16 years old. "Sukharev was informed about it and tried to meet only those who turned 16," the witness added.
In 2006 the suspected pedophile fled to Ukraine and escaped punishment. The victim believes that the principal's attorney and large sums of money helped him. In Pushkin people even state the amount – 24 thousand Euros. No one knows who received this money.
In any case, the prosecution office closed Sukharev's case. "They had many questions for him, and then the questions suddenly disappeared," the victim said.
Komsomolskaya Pravda


New York [United States], Nov.7 : The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey informed lawmakers that the agency has not changed its opinion that Hillary Clinton should not face criminal charges after a review of new emails.
"Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July," the CNN quoted Comey as saying in the new letter written by him to congressional committee chairmen.
Last month, a bombshell was dropped by Comey on the presidential race as he had sent a letter to Congress saying that the FBI had discovered emails in a separate investigation that could be connected to the now closed probe of whether the classified information was mishandled by Clinton.
The news could help Clinton put to rest a controversy that has dogged her in the 2016 race's closing days, helping Trump narrow a polling gap nationally and in key battleground states.
The FBI's handling of the matter was assailed by Trump, However he did not directly address Comey's statement at a rally in Sterling Heights, Michigan.
"You can't review 650,000 new emails in eight days. You can't do it, folks," Trump said, adding, " Hillary Clinton is guilty. She knows it, the FBI knows it, the people know it, and now it's up to the American people to deliver justice at the ballot box on November 8."
Comey's handling of the review was blasted by Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Feinstein in a statement said, "Today's letter makes Director Comey's actions nine days ago even more troubling. There's no doubt that it created a false impression about the nature of the agency's inquiry."
The new emails were found by the FBI as part of its separate investigation into a sexting incident by Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
While explaining how the conclusion was reached so quickly Law enforcement officials said that the thousands of new emails were mostly personal and duplicates of what had already been seen.
The probe is considered to be over with regard to Clinton. However, with not all the deleted emails recovered and not all the devices in FBI's possession, it is always possible that something else could turn up that would need more review.


text:
/*
 * DO NOT EDIT.  THIS FILE IS GENERATED FROM nsISeekableStream.idl
 */

#ifndef __gen_nsISeekableStream_h__
#define __gen_nsISeekableStream_h__

#ifndef __gen_nsISupports_h__
#include "nsISupports.h"
#endif

/* For IDL files that don't want to include root IDL files. */
#ifndef NS_NO_VTABLE
#define NS_NO_VTABLE
#endif

/* starting interface:    nsISeekableStream */
#define NS_ISEEKABLESTREAM_IID_STR "e9de5df0-c7ec-11d3-8cda-0060b0fc14a3"

#define NS_ISEEKABLESTREAM_IID \
  {0xe9de5df0, 0xc7ec, 0x11d3, \
    { 0x8c, 0xda, 0x00, 0x60, 0xb0, 0xfc, 0x14, 0xa3 }}

class NS_NO_VTABLE nsISeekableStream : public nsISupports {
 public:

  NS_DEFINE_STATIC_IID_ACCESSOR(NS_ISEEKABLESTREAM_IID)

  enum { NS_SEEK_SET = 0 };

  enum { NS_SEEK_CUR = 1 };

  enum { NS_SEEK_END = 2 };

  /**
     *  seek
     *
     *  This method moves the stream offset of the steam implementing this
     *  interface.
     *
     *   @param whence specifies how to interpret the 'offset' parameter in
     *                 setting the stream offset associated with the implementing
     *                 stream.
     *
     *   @param offset specifies a value, in bytes, that is used in conjunction
     *                 with the 'whence' parameter to set the stream offset of the
     *                 implementing stream.  A negative value causes seeking in
     *                 the reverse direction.
     */
  /* void seek (in long whence, in long offset); */
  NS_IMETHOD Seek(PRInt32 whence, PRInt32 offset) = 0;

  /**
     *  tell
     *
     *  This method reports the current offset, in bytes, from the start of the
     *  stream.
     */
  /* unsigned long tell (); */
  NS_IMETHOD Tell(PRUint32 *_retval) = 0;

  /**
     *  setEOF
     *
     *  This method truncates the stream at the current offset.
     */
  /* void setEOF (); */
  NS_IMETHOD SetEOF(void) = 0;

};

/* Use this macro when declaring classes that implement this interface. */
#define NS_DECL_NSISEEKABLESTREAM \
  NS_IMETHOD Seek(PRInt32 whence, PRInt32 offset); \
  NS_IMETHOD Tell(PRUint32 *_retval); \
  NS_IMETHOD SetEOF(void);

/* Use this macro to declare functions that forward the behavior of this interface to another object. */
#define NS_FORWARD_NSISEEKABLESTREAM(_to) \
  NS_IMETHOD Seek(PRInt32 whence, PRInt32 offset) { return _to Seek(whence, offset); } \
  NS_IMETHOD Tell(PRUint32 *_retval) { return _to Tell(_retval); } \
  NS_IMETHOD SetEOF(void) { return _to SetEOF(); }

/* Use this macro to declare functions that forward the behavior of this interface to another object in a safe way. */
#define NS_FORWARD_SAFE_NSISEEKABLESTREAM(_to) \
  NS_IMETHOD Seek(PRInt32 whence, PRInt32 offset) { return !_to ? NS_ERROR_NULL_POINTER : _to->Seek(whence, offset); } \
  NS_IMETHOD Tell(PRUint32 *_retval) { return !_to ? NS_ERROR_NULL_POINTER : _to->Tell(_retval); } \
  NS_IMETHOD SetEOF(void) { return !_to ? NS_ERROR_NULL_POINTER : _to->SetEOF(); }

#if 0
/* Use the code below as a template for the implementation class for this interface. */

/* Header file */
class nsSeekableStream : public nsISeekableStream
{
public:
  NS_DECL_ISUPPORTS
  NS_DECL_NSISEEKABLESTREAM

  nsSeekableStream();
  virtual ~nsSeekableStream();
  /* additional members */
};

/* Implementation file */
NS_IMPL_ISUPPORTS1(nsSeekableStream, nsISeekableStream)

nsSeekableStream::nsSeekableStream()
{
  /* member initializers and constructor code */
}

nsSeekableStream::~nsSeekableStream()
{
  /* destructor code */
}

/* void seek (in long whence, in long offset); */
NS_IMETHODIMP nsSeekableStream::Seek(PRInt32 whence, PRInt32 offset)
{
    return NS_ERROR_NOT_IMPLEMENTED;
}

/* unsigned long tell (); */
NS_IMETHODIMP nsSeekableStream::Tell(PRUint32 *_retval)
{
    return NS_ERROR_NOT_IMPLEMENTED;
}

/* void setEOF (); */
NS_IMETHODIMP nsSeekableStream::SetEOF()
{
    return NS_ERROR_NOT_IMPLEMENTED;
}

/* End of implementation class template. */
#endif

#endif /* __gen_nsISeekableStream_h__ */

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


We're very excited to reveal that Alison has been featured on the Home By Kirsty blog. The post is from a series called Meet The Maker where various designers and or makers are interviewed about their business, loves, likes etc. It's a great interview as we get an insight into a day in the life of Alison, how she came to be an illustrator, where she studied and her love of late night working.


text:
Biya is running a country where no one takes responsibility, no one apologizes, and no one resigns
300 dialysis patients staged a strike action in front of the Yaounde General Hospital this week. It was the second strike action in the country after that of Bamenda some months ago. The patients revealed that only 7 out of the 15 available haemodialysis machines were operational in the hospital. The two weekly sessions per dialysis patient can no longer be assured by the management of the hospital. To be sure, the machines are outdated, dysfunctional, dusty and dirty. Biya is indeed running a country where no one takes responsibility, no one apologizes, and no one resigns.
In reality, if we examine the budget of Cameroon particularly for the 2015 fiscal year, needless to mention how much President Biya spends a day in the Intercontinental Hotel in Geneva, we will discover that the CPDM regime has been a complete mess and Biya-a successful failure. We now know that there are ongoing subsidies granted to the haemodialysis centres in public hospitals in the country. To be accurate more than five billion FCFA is given to all these centres annually.
Our chief intelligence officer in Yaounde revealed that for the 2016 financial year, the haemodialysis centre at the University Teaching Hospital in Yaounde received 400 million FCFA; those of Bafoussam, Bertoua, Ebolowa, N'gaoundéré, were paid 200 million FCFA each and those of Buea, Bamenda, Garoua and Maroua respectively had 300 million FCFA. The haemodialysis centre in the Douala General Hospital received 1.4 billion FCFA and the Chantal Biya International Centre was paid 1.96 billion FCFA. These amounts have been allocated annually for the operation of haemodialysis centres in the country.
This begs the question: Who are those managing credits sent to these centres by government? We are also tempted to ask if the Ministry of Public Health actually makes these grants available to these hospital units. A recent report published by the Cameroon Concord News Group noted that the haemodialysis centres are understaffed and the work force demoralized working in bizarre conditions with very low wages.
The only thing you can find exciting at the Ministry of Public Health in Yaounde are the photos of all former ministers appointed to head the ministry right from the Ahidjo era till date. The delay in sacking Minister Andre Mama Fouda has been blamed on the lack of space on the entrance to the building on which to place his own photo. Time is running out for dialysis patients and the morally bankrupt CPDM regime is simply watching.
By Soter Tarh Agbaw-Ebai
Editorial /
‹ Global Refugee Crisis: A Presstv soul-searching write up › Cameroon police foils plot to traffic 4 Nigerian girls to Moscow as sex workers
Where is our President. Seemingly he does not want to come back home or what is really happening to him?


testimonials | What happens in my sessions?
Each yoga session includes a warm up, usually to music - this shakes tension out of joints and muscles, frees the breathing, often includes a good laugh, and begins to get energy moving around the body.
Then there will usually be an energy block release. EBR's are graceful and powerful sequences of flowing movement designed specifically to free energy blockages on a physical, emotional and spiritual level.
There will also be postures and sequences - for instance the moon sequence (emotionally calming) or salutation to the earth (grounding and stabilising).
Breath awareness is a focus. Simple yogic breathing is sometimes included - particularly the Complete Breath or Deep Yogic Breath.
I always finish with guided deep relaxation, usually 30 mins, sometimes including visualisation.
Sometimes we end with a short period of sitting meditation.
Sometimes in the session we listen to the bell to bring us back to the present moment, ready to go back to the rest of our lives ... the bell comes fom my Zen practice.
These are very gentle - designed to be accessible by even the weak and weary, with many modifications and the option to remain sitting but still join in. Some of the stretches and exercises are done sitting down by the whole group.
Another title for these could be 'the art of relaxation' because there are many simple things we can do to aid relaxation.
In these sessions we will often have short 'pair shares' - connecting with ourselves, with others.
We do simple breathing awareness, while sitting, and body scans - cultivating acceptance and awareness of how we are right now.
We do some movement to music and stretch out and let go physically.
We end with a guided deep relaxation, under a blanket.
I regularly facilitate mindfulness and meditation sessions for The Heart of Manchester Buddhist Sangha at Chorlton Unitarian Church 7.30 to 9.30 every Sunday night. All welcome. Small donation towards room hire.
I'm available on enquiry to teach yoga relaxation and/or mindfulness 121 to individuals and can create a ptrogram around your specific needs. Sliding scale of charges according to your means.


Congratulations on your little baby girl!!! That's so exciting!
I am so happy for you hon and yay! A girl! So exciting! I know it really felt a lot more real to me once we found out we were having a boy. I know too well how hard it is to not worry but it does get easier with each milestone you reach and this is a huge milestone! And I hear you on the "is this your first?" question. It's so hard. I tend to read the situation and decide if I want to tell people everything, but sometimes it just doesn't feel right and i think that's okay. Hugs hon. Congrats on your baby girl!
Thank you so much:) It helps to know I am not the only one!
Congratulations on a baby girl!!!
Baby girl! Congratulations! The "Is this your first" question is so hard. So, so hard. I still pause every time I get that question before I respond. To some, I am honest, but to most I just say "yes" because I don't want to explain. But if it feels right to share and you want to sometimes, I say go for it. I have yet to have an unpleasant reaction from anyone. So very happy for you and I hope you can enjoy it more and more every day.


Aline Brosh McKenna joins John and Craig to discuss watching movies with an open mind and why it's important to befriend other writers.
Also this week: what to do when your outline collapses and a look at going broke in your 50s.
The Scriptnotes Live Holiday Show on December 19th is technically sold out, but there's a chance seats will open up, so keep an eye on Twitter.
UPDATE 12-1-13: The transcript of this episode can be found here.


Ivan's blog: Is Annual Appraisal Time Approaching? Don't Bother, They Don't Work!
Is Annual Appraisal Time Approaching? Don't Bother, They Don't Work!
It is always encouraging when one is able to read articles that agree with and, I like to think, substantiate one's opinions. At last, I feel, that I am not a lone voice in the wilderness.
For a long time I have been banging on about the use of the annual appraisal to check on and assess the performance of each individual.
This is only one of a raft or similar articles that examine the annual appraisal and most of them come to the same conclusion.
It always seems to me that using the annual appraisal alone (which is quite common) to make this assessment is similar to using the end of year accounts to manage the business without any reference to what is happening on a month-to-month basis.
If that is not countenanced why should the use of the annual appraisal be used in the same way? It just doesn't make sense to assume that everyone can be assessed merely on one form filling exercise every year.
What therefore are the reasons NOT to use the annual appraisal system?
They are many in my view and cover mostly the reaction of the individual being assessed. For a start many managers do not realize that the prospect of undergoing the annual grilling strikes fear and trepidation into the hearts of many of their employees.
People can become fearful of what might transpire and, worse still, the possibility of action being taken by the company as a consequence.
People being people, the usual assumption is negative which can have a very depressing effect even if the results are eventually good and positive.
It can viewed as a modern form of the Star Chamber with the individual being brought to book by someone who may actually not like them or worse, see them as threat of they are a great performer.
What I find even more invidious is the use of some form of ranking as a consequence of the appraisal, say, 1 to 5. The assumption is that 4 and 5 are good, 3 is moderately acceptable and 1 and 2 absolutely not acceptable.
Jack Welch of GE fame was a great leader but he used the ranking system with apparently no concern for the feelings or indeed the actual value of the individual. If anyone scored 1 or 2 they were out and that was that.
Can you imagine the feelings of someone rated 1 or 2 who would know immediately that they were apparently dispensable? What a way to treat a human being who may well have valuable attributes that didn't emerge in the appraisal.
The answer to this situation is to understand that you can find out much more about people if they are looked after and who feel that the business cares about them.
The ideal answer is a regular one-to-one with everyone conducted by their line manager. This meds to be at least monthly for at least an hour, preferably more, and is to the agenda of the individual not the manager.
The first question should be: "What di you want to talk about today?" and that ought to bring out any problems that they have. It may take some time for people to feel free to talk and that is entirely up to the manager or leader.
Doing this on a regular basis will almost eliminate the annual appraisal although there may be some value in retaining it a summation of what has been discussed through the year.
Finally if you do persist with the appraisals they should NEVER be used to determine next year's salary level. That would make the individual even more nervous and militates against any sensible discussion.
Use the regular one-to-one judiciously and just watch the results.


Time until Clash'N Slash: Worlds Away release day!
In Worlds Away, as in our original Clash'N Slash, you must defend your planet from pesky alien invaders arriving from all over the galaxy. This time, alien hordes are more diverse and clever featuring more than 70 enemy types and 12 huge bosses. But worry not, as there are two brave heroes on your side! Barry Barnes (codename: Clash) and Liz Valentine (codename: Slash) are there to help you save humanity.


Multicopters are already helping railway customers to reach their destination on time and the modernization of the rail network in Germany is progressing faster. Since 2015, the Deutsche Bahn multicopter team has been operating regular drones nationwide.
The DB currently uses twelve types of multicopters. The versions are differentiated, for example, according to load capacity, flight duration and operational readiness. They are equipped with cameras - for videos, high-resolution digital images or infrared images.
There are many potential applications at DB. Drones, for example, check trees on railway lines for stability, in order to detect at an early stage where branches or logs could fall onto the tracks. Even the health of the trees can be seen from the aerial photographs. The aerial photographs will be linked to other geo-data in order to be able to pinpoint the locations of dangerous trees and to initiate preventative protective measures. This is faster, more accurate and more efficient than the inspection and assessment of the routes by employees.
Another field of application is the building inspection from the air. Drone flights over station roofs, bridges or factories are usually possible without blocking traffic routes. Time and costs for scaffolding, operational scheduling and approval procedures are saved. The railway operation is not affected by the recordings. In this way, the DB's multicopters have already gained almost unnoticed data from the air at the Fehmarnsund Bridge, at Wiesbaden Central Station or at the ICE plant under construction in Cologne-Nippes.
Drones can help accelerate construction planning. From the images of the multicopter digital 3D models of the route or the building can be calculated, for example, form an important basis for Building Information Modeling (BIM). Large-scale railway projects, such as the new Stuttgart-Ulm line, place high demands on construction management. The photos, videos and data facilitate planning and cost control. What record drones, can be digitally visualized in models and thus made easily understandable to a broad public.
Also in the security area, where it is about people in the track or graffiti sprayer, win drones in importance. With the adoption of the new drone regulation, the legal situation for drone operations has changed since April 2017 even without direct visual contact. The aircraft may now also fly at night over railway facilities with permission, also remote controlled route checks are possible.


text:
Ivan Wilzig
Guest Website
https://www.facebook.com/sirivanofficial
Guest Category
Guest Occupation
Recording artist, Philanthropist, Celebrity
Guest Biography
Banker–turned–singer, reality TV celebrity and social activist Ivan Wilzig has led a life that Hollywood movies are made of; all of which ultimately ties back to his passion to see the world live in peace and harmony.
Born in Clifton, New Jersey (January 6, 1956), Ivan grew up with two siblings and went on to earn a bachelor's degree in European Intellectual History from the University of Pennsylvania and then later, he went on to earn a law degree from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. Rather than practicing law however, Ivan joined his father Siggi in running The Trust Company of New Jersey.
After more than twenty years working for his family's multi-billion dollar commercial banking business, where he also sat on the Board of Directors, Ivan left the banking world behind to reinvent himself as recording artist "Sir Ivan". His love for music and his passion for peace and equality translated into a very unique sound that ultimately led to him becoming a Top 10 Billboard-charting artist.
THE RECORDING ARTIST
Sir Ivan's journey began in 2000, when he played a demo tape for Dave Jurman, Senior Executive Director of Dance Music at Colombia Records. Dave was so impressed with Ivan's talent and enthusiasm that he immediately introduced him to Ernie Lake, half of the two–time Grammy nominated producer team known as Soul Solution who produced Sir Ivan's first single.
For that first single, Sir Ivan chose the iconic John Lennon song "Imagine", as the lyrics and message closely mirrored his own beliefs of creating a world without violence and hatred. The reason these lyrics resonated so strongly with Ivan is because his father was an Auschwitz concentration camp survivor and 59 of their Jewish family members were murdered during the Holocaust.
"Imagine" was signed to Tommy Boy Records, by label founder Tom Silverman, and was released on September 4, 2001, exactly one week before the horrendous September 11th tragedy; where it broke into the Top 40 on the Billboard Club Play Chart.
It was the first time in history that a recording artist had converted the slow rock ballad into a high energy dance record. In fact, it was the first time that a recording artist remade any Beatles or John Lennon ballad into a dance record. Incredibly, thirty years after Lennon's original release, Sir Ivan had made the song popular again for a whole new generation.
In 2011, Sir Ivan hit another milestone. After enjoying various degrees of success with other songs on the Billboard Charts, Sir Ivan finally got the recognition from the music industry he was seeking when, for the first time, he ranked in the Top 10 on Billboard's Dance/Club Play chart with his hit single "Hare Krishna", sharing the top 10 slots with superstar performers like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Jennifer Lopez and Rihanna.
After this monumental feat, the momentum never stopped. Sir Ivan went on to release another hit single "Live For Today," where he ranked in not one, but two different Top 10 Music Week Magazine Charts, in the UK, in 2011 and 2012.
His first original song "La La Land", in which he co-wrote the lyrics, also made the Top 10 in UK's Music Week Chart in 2012. Next up, Sir Ivan co-wrote his anti-bullying anthem, "Kiss All The Bullies Goodbye", created specifically to address the nation's teen bullying epidemic and the high suicide rate occurring within the LGBTQ teenage community. This time Sir Ivan reached out to heavyweight dance music producer Paul Oakenfold and well-known singer Taylor Dayne and the song landed in the Top Ten in UK's Music Week Chart in 2015. Sir Ivan's dream of becoming an "electro-pop" star had become a reality.
Inspired by the success of "Imagine", Sir Ivan decided that all of his music would be about universal love, human rights and peace. The '60s were both the most evolutionary and revolutionary period in history – when civil rights, women's rights and gay rights were bravely fought for. The fight for these rights is still being waged today and Sir Ivan is leading the battle through his music and philanthropy.
In 2005, Sir Ivan founded The Peaceman Foundation to fight hatred and violence. Since then, he personally and The Peaceman Foundation have donated over $500,000 to various charities, including many LGBTQ, anti-bullying, and other organizations that help those directly affected by violence, such as people suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
Sir Ivan is known as "Peaceman" because he portrays a superhero when he performs, complete with a cape adorned with a large peace sign centered on his back. He has been spreading his message of positivity, acceptance and goodwill around the world for more than 18 years.
THE CELEBRITY
Because of his music success, charitable work and fabulous medieval-style castle in the Hamptons, Sir Ivan has been featured on TV shows all over the world, and has quite a large following in France and Germany due to his appearance on numerous programs that have aired in those countries. Stan Lee, the most famous superhero creator of all time, personally selected Sir Ivan to star as a finalist on the SciFi Channel reality TV series Who Wants to be a Superhero. Sir Ivan has also made featured appearances on VH1's The Fabulous Life of the Hamptons, Discovery Channel's Epic Castles and Bravo's Chef Roble & Co.
Sir Ivan's movie experience consists of a major part in a full length documentary, King of the Hamptons, and, a minor role in an independent SAG film, called The Gold and the Beautiful. In addition, Sir Ivan has worked with four-time Emmy® award-winning director Jim Brown, who has also done documentaries on Billy Joel, Pete Seeger, and Peter, Paul and Mary.
Dabbling in the Hollywood film finance business, Sir Ivan was one of the Executive Producers of full-length movie Freak Show, an adaptation of James St. James' best-selling book.
IN MIAMI
In 2018, Sir Ivan joined the Board of Directors for the College of Communication, Architecture + the Arts (CARTA) at Florida International University (FIU).
Sir Ivan is co-owner of the Wilzig Erotic Art Museum (WEAM), the largest privately owned collection of fine erotic art in America, which is one of the reasons he was invited by FIU Dean Brian Schriner to join the Board of Directors.
On December 12, 2018 Miami Beach, Florida commissioner Michael Góngora issued a proclamation for "Sir Ivan Wilzig Day", in perpetuity, to acknowledge and show appreciation for his work and contributions, in his fight against bullying.


Maryland Football Club is a club which will have a professional team to be based in Maryland, Mount Vema. The club will compete in the Mount Vema Football League and was formed as part of the City of Mount Vema Development plans.
Maryland F.C., is a PLC company registered with the Kingdom of Mount Vema - The Vema Seamount Territory.
Registration number 17010023, VAT number KMVC00-000-023.