text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
United States District Court, S.D. California
October 5, 2005.
REBECCA GIBSON, Plaintiff,
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
These motions were referred to Magistrate Judge McCurine for a
report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(2) and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Pursuant to the Southern
District of California Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), the Court
finds these motions may be decided on the papers and that no oral
argument is necessary. After careful consideration of the papers,
the administrative record, and the applicable law, this Court
recommends the Commissioner's decision adopting the ALJ's
decision be AFFIRMED, Ms. Gibson's motion for summary judgment
be DENIED, and Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment
be GRANTED.
On May 13, 2002, Plaintiff filed an application for Social
Security Disability Insurance Benefits ("SSDI") claiming
disability. Administrative Record ("A.R." at 14). Plaintiff's
application was denied in the first instance and again after
reconsideration. (A.R. at 14). Plaintiff requested an
administrative hearing, which took place on May 5, 2003.
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Samuel Durso denied her request
for benefits and issued an order on June 18, 2003. Plaintiff
sough review of the ALJ's decision which was denied by the
Appeals Council on October 17, 2003. (A.R. at 4). Hence, the
ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner.
(A.R. at 4). Thereafter, plaintiff filed the instant action in
Federal Court.
Plaintiff was born March 17, 1958 and is currently 47 years
old. (A.R. at 25). At the alleged onset of her disability on May
13, 2002, plaintiff was 44 years old. (A.R. at 15). Ms. Gibson
has a high school diploma. Her past relevant work experience
includes twenty-one years as an electronics assembler. (A.R. at
At the May 5, 2003, hearing before the ALJ, Ms. Gibson
testified that she suffers from systemic lupus Erythematosus and
lupus profundus. (A.R. at 27-30). Plaintiff testified that she
stopped working because of joint pain and soreness in both her
shoulders, hands, and knees. (A.R. at 27). Plaintiff testified
that due to her pain she can not sit for more than thirty minutes
and must get out and move around for about 15-20 minutes before she can
sit back down. Plaintiff uses a cane when she walks and asserts
she can only walk about half of a block before stopping. (A.R. at
27). Plaintiff testified that she can not lift and carry more
than 10 pounds. She uses elbow pads and splints for both hands.
(A.R at 28-29). She is prescribed and takes pain medication.
(A.R. at 29).
The supplemental security income program established by Title
XVI of the Act provides benefits to disabled persons without
substantial resources and little income. 42 U.S.C. § 1383. To
qualify, a claimant must establish an inability to engage in
"substantial gainful activity" because of a "medically
determinable physical or mental impairment" that "has lasted or
can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than
12 months." 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). The disabling impairment
must be so severe that, considering age, education, and work
experience, the claimant cannot engage in any kind of substantial
gainful work that exists in the national economy.
42 U.S.C. § 1382(a)(3)(B).
The Commissioner makes this assessment by a five-step analysis.
First, the claimant must currently not be working.
20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). Second, the claimant must have a "severe" impairment.
20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). Third, the medical evidence of the
claimant's impairment is compared to a list of impairments that
are presumed severe enough to preclude work; if the claimant's
impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments,
benefits are awarded. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). Fourth, if the
claimant can do his past work benefits are denied.
20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). Fifth, if the claimant cannot do his past work and,
considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and
residual functional capacity, cannot do other work that exists in
the national economy, benefits are awarded.
20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f). The last two steps of the analysis are required by
statute. 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a)(3)(B).
In addition, when evaluating the severity of a claimant's
alleged mental impairments, the Commissioner uses a "special
technique" at each level of the review process.
20 C.F.R. § 416.1520a. In order to be considered disabled under the Act, the
claimant must have (1) a medically determinable mental impairment(s),
20 C.F.R. § 416.1520a(b)(1),*fn2 and (2) exhibit specified functional
limitations as a result of that impairment(s) that prohibit the
claimant from engaging in any gainful activity.
20 C.F.R. § 416.1520a(b)(2). If the claimant has a medically determinable
mental impairment but does not exhibit the requisite functional
limitations, the claimant may nevertheless still be considered
disabled if the claimant exhibits clusters of symptoms or a
syndrome that indicate an inability to engage in gainful
activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(d); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P,
App. 1 § 12.00.A. (impairment(s) must either pose functional
limitations or cause symptoms or a syndrome to support a finding
that the claimant is disabled).
Section 1383(c)(3) of the Social Security Act through Section
405(g) of the Act, allow unsuccessful applicants to seek judicial
review of a final agency decision of the Commissioner.
42 U.S.C. §§ 1383(c)(3), 405(g). The scope of judicial review is limited,
however, and the Commissioner's denial of benefits "will be
disturbed only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or
is based on legal error." Brawner v. Secretary of Health and
Human Services, 839 F.2d 432, 433(9th Cir. 1988) (citing Green
v. Heckler, 803 F.2d 528, 529 (9th Cir. 1986)).
Substantial evidence means "more than a mere scintilla" but
less than a preponderance. Sandqathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978,
980 (9th Cir. 1997). "[I]t is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion." Id. (quoting Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035,
1039 (9th Cir. 1995)). The court must consider the record as
a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and detracts
from the Commissioner's conclusions, Desrosiers v. Secretary of
Health & Human Services, 846 F.2d 573, 576, (9th Cir. 1988).
If the evidence supports more than one rational interpretation,
the court must uphold the ALJ's decision. Allen v. Heckler,
749 F.2d 577, 579 (9th Cir. 1984). When the evidence is
inconclusive, "questions of credibility and resolution of
conflicts in the testimony are functions solely of the
Secretary." Sample, 694 F.2d at 642. The ALJ has a special duty in social security cases to fully
and fairly develop the record in order to make an informed
decision on a claimant's entitlement to disability benefits.
DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841, 849 (9th Cir. 1991).
Because disability hearings are not adversarial in nature, the
ALJ must "inform himself about the facts relevant to his
decision," even if the claimant is represented by counsel. Id.
(quoting Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 471 n. 1 (1983)).
Even if the reviewing courts finds that substantial evidence
supports the ALJ's conclusions, the court must set aside the
decision if the ALJ failed to apply the proper legal standards in
weighing the evidence and reaching his or her decision. Benitez
v. Califano, 573 F.2d 653, 655 (9th Cir. 1978). Section
405(g) permits a court to enter a judgment affirming, modifying
or reversing the Commissioner's decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The
reviewing court may also remand the matter to the Social Security
Administrator for further proceedings. Id.
Medical Evidence Presented
To understand Plaintiff's alleged medical problems a
chronological review of her relevant medical history is presented
March 20, 1998: Plaintiff is seen by Dr. Serocki, M.D. for
her shoulder. Patient status is noted by Dr. Serocki as "not
improved significantly." (A.R. at 137).
February 13, 2002: Plaintiff presents hive like symptoms.
Dr. Klofkorn, M.D. notes SLE with lupus profundus fairly well
controlled. (A.R. at 163).
April 17, 2002: Dr. Klofkorn examines Plaintiff. He notes
her right shoulder remains painful and some occasional lesions on
her legs. No other signs of active lupus. (A.R. at 158).
May 8, 16, 29, 2002: Plaintiff is seen by Dr. Klofkorn.
Plaintiff's lupus is active but doing better with medication.
(May 29, 2002). (A.R. at 154). Plaintiff has decreased range of
motion in her right shoulder. (May 8, 2002). (A.R. at 156).
Plaintiff's right foot is swollen. (May 16, 2002). (A.R. at 155).
Plaintiff is laid off from her job. (May 16, 2002). (A.R. at
June 12, 2002: Plaintiff sees Dr. Klofkorn. He states that
she continues to develop skin lesions and continues to have
facial swelling. He finds her Lupus profundus active. (A.R. at
June 21, 2002: Plaintiff is seen by Dr. Stanton, M.D. for
Lupus, rheumatism, arthritis and concentration. Dr. Stanton noted that her Lupus was medically
managed and currently physically non-severe. (A.R. at 140).
June 26, 2002: Dr. Klofkorn examines Plaintiff and notes
that there is "no real change is [sic] problems." (A.R. at 152).
Plaintiff still has facial swelling and recurrent painful nodules
on her legs. No mention is made of Plaintiff's right shoulder and
knee. (A.R. at 152).
July 12, 2002: Plaintiff undergoes an Esophagus and upper
GI. Her test results show no abnormalities. (A.R. at 150).
July 18, 2002: Plaintiff is seen by Dr. Klofkorn. He states
that she continues to have "several problems" including new
lesions from her Lupus, right shoulder pain, and right knee pain.
He describes her rotator cuff tendinitis as occupation-related.
(A.R. at 148).
August 1, 2002: Dr. Klofkorn examines Plaintiff. He notes
that her Lupus is controlled. Periorbital swelling has improved.
Fewer crops of painful nodules. Dr. Klofkorn also notes that
Plaintiff's right shoulder is more painful. (A.R. at 145).
August 27, 2002: Plaintiff is seen in Urgent Care
complaining of lower back pain. Dr. Chambers, M.D. is the
treating physician. He increases her Flexiril medication and
prescribes heat for the pain and resting in a comfortable
position. (A.R. at 144).
September 13, 2002: Dr. Klofkorn responds to Defendant's
request for information regarding Plaintiff's claimed physical
impairments. Specifically, Dr. Klofkorn notes that Plaintiff's
right knee remains painful but that her "right shoulder is doing
better with good protection, cold packs." (A.R. at 143). Dr.
Klofkorn also notes that her Lupus is controlled.
Vocational Evidence Presented
The ALJ utilized a vocational expert ("VE") in this case Mary
Jesko. Ms. Jesko testified that, after having reviewed the
vocational statements of record and listening to the testimony,
she classified claimant's past work as light, semi-skilled. (A.R.
at 41-42). Thereafter, Ms. Jesko was presented with a
hypothetical question from the ALJ incorporating the ALJ's
determination of Plaintiff's residual functional capacity.
Presented with that information Ms. Jesko testified that it was
her opinion that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work.
(A.R. at 43). The ALJ presented Ms. Jesko with an alternative
hypothetical which incorporated Plaintiff's claims of restrictions and limitations. Under those circumstances, the VE
testified that Plaintiff would not be able to perform her past
relevant work. (A.R. at 43). The VE further testified that under
the second hypothetical, Plaintiff would not be able to perform
any alternate work. (A.R. at 43).
ALJ's Medical Evidence Evaluation
After a lengthy discussion of the medical evidence presented
and a presentation of Plaintiff's testimony, the ALJ determined
Plaintiff was not entitled to disability insurance benefits under
the Act. (A.R. at 18).
Specifically, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in
gainful activity since May 13, 2002, and that the medical
evidence established she suffered from Lupus profundus, right
shoulder pain and right knee pain and systemic Lupus
erythematosus. (A.R. at 16). However, the ALJ concluded these
impairments or combinations thereof failed to meet or equal the
criteria of any of the sections listed in the Social Security
Regulations. (A.R. at 16).
In reaching his decision the ALJ considered the February 13,
2002 report of Dr. Klofkorn, M.D. In doing so, the ALJ noted that
Dr. Klofkorn reported that Plaintiff's SLE with lupus profundus
was fairly well-controlled. (A.R. at 16).
The ALJ also considered Dr. Klofkorn's report from an
examination of Plaintiff on March 27, 2002. The ALJ cites to the
sections of the report where Dr. Klofkorn states that Plaintiff's
lupus profundus is more active and that she has had showers of
lesions on her legs and on the right side of her face. (A.R. at
Additionally, the ALJ considered Dr. Klofkorn's report from an
April 17, 2002 examination. The ALJ noted that Dr. Klofkorn
reported that Plaintiff's lupus profundus was settling back into
the usual patter on occasional lesions on her legs which heal
after a few days. The ALJ also noted that at this examination,
Plaintiff's right shoulder continued to be painful, but that
there were no other signs of active lupus. (A.R. at 16).
The ALJ also cited to Plaintiff's May 8, 2002 exam by Dr.
Klofkorn, noting that her lupus profundus was active again. The
ALJ further noted that Plaintiff had decreased range of motion in
her right shoulder accompanied by pain. (A.R. at 16).
In his decision, the ALJ refers to Plaintiff's June 26, 2002,
doctor's visit. The ALJ notes that Dr. Klofkorn reports that Plaintiff's facial swelling
continues with recurrent small crops of painful nodules on her
legs that go away over a few days. The lupus profundus is still
active. (A.R. at 16).
The ALJ also considered the July 18, 2002, report of Dr.
Klofkorn who found that Plaintiff's SLE was quiet but that she
continued to have lesions. Plaintiff's right shoulder had
decreased range of motion with pain and tenderness. (A.R. at
The ALJ reviewed and considered the reports of Dr. Klofkorn
from his August 1, 2001 and August 30, 2002, examinations of
Plaintiff. On August 1, 2002, Plaintiff's periorbital swelling
had improved with fewer crops of nodules. Plaintiff was
undergoing physical therapy for her increasingly painful right
shoulder. On August 30, 2002, Plaintiff's right knee was still
painful but her right shoulder had improved. (A.R. at 17). The
ALJ noted that the report referred to continued skin lesions in
small crops which resolved in a few days. (A.R. at 17).
In his decision, the ALJ noted that, other than the above
mentioned reports, there were no further medical records from Dr.
Klofkorn or any other physician or rheumatologist. (A.R. at 17.).
In sum, in reviewing the medical records and testimony
presented, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's "medically determinable
impairments do not meet or medically equal one of the listed
impairments in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4." (A.R.
at 18). Therefore, the ALJ rejected Plaintiff's allegations of
disabling limitations, and determined that Plaintiff "can perform
her past relevant work as an electronics assembler which is a
light semiskilled job as it is generally performed in the
national economy." (A.R. at 19). The ALJ further found that the
Plaintiff had performed her past work at the sedentary level of
work activity. (A.R. at 19).
Plaintiff's Claim on Appeal
The single contentions raised by Plaintiff are that the ALJ's
decision was not supported by substantial evidence and is not
free of legal error. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly
discredited her testimony about symptoms and pain. (Pl's P.&A. at
According to Plaintiff, the pain and physical limitations she
experiences as a result of her physical impairments were
sufficiently proven to be severe by the medical evidence
presented. Plaintiff argues that none of the cited reasons in the
ALJ's decision identified what testimony the ALJ found not credible. (Pl's P.&A. at 9-10). "Failure to isolate
particular complaints of pain and discuss the evidence suggesting
that those complaints are not credible, is an error of law
requiring reversal. Varney v. Secretary of Health and Human
Services, 846 F.2d 581, 584 (9th Cir. 1988) (Varney I)."
(Pl's P.& A. at 9).
The Defendant argues that the ALJ properly considered and
addressed in his decision the medical opinion evidence presented
in the record, Plaintiff's testimony regarding her symptoms,
pain, treatment and his personal observations of Plaintiff at the
hearing. (Def. P.&A. at 4).
In the instant case, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff's
allegations of disabling pain, impairments and limitations are
not credible. (A.R. at 17). When evaluating a plaintiff's claim
of subjective symptom testimony, the ALJ must engage in a two
step analysis: (1) the Cotton test*fn3 and (2) analysis of
the plaintiff's credibility. Smolen v. Chater, 705 F.3d 1273,
1281-82 (9th Cir. 1996). The Cotton test requires the ALJ to
determine whether the plaintiff has produced objective medical
evidence of an underlying impairment and whether the symptoms
alleged could reasonably be produced by the impairment. Bunnell
v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1991). If the plaintiff
meets the Cotton test, and there is no evidence of malingering,
the ALJ must offer specific, clear and convincing reasons to
reject the plaintiff's symptom testimony. See Dodrill v.
Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 1993). To meet the
standard, the ALJ must specify which testimony is not credible
and "what evidence suggests the complaints are not credible."
Id. The ALJ "must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and
limiting effects of the individual's ability to do basic work
activities." Social Security Ruling, No. 96-7p, (SSA July 2,
1996). When the individual's statements are not substantiated by
objective medical evidence, "the adjudicator must make a finding
on the credibility of the individual's statements based on a
consideration of the entire case record," including but not
limited to "the medical reports and laboratory findings, the
individual's own statements about the symptoms and how they
affect the individual," as well as any other "relevant evidence
in the case file." Id. "When additional information is needed
to assess the credibility of the individual's statements about
symptoms and their effects, the adjudicator must make every reasonable effort to obtain available information that
could shed light on the credibility of the individual's
statements." Id. In addition to medical evidence, the
adjudicator "must consider" the kinds of evidence identified in
20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c) and 426.929(c), including factors such as
the claimant's daily activities, factors that precipitate or
aggravate the symptoms, medications taken to relieve pain,
treatment other than medication, and "[a]ny other factors
concerning the individuals's functional limitations and
restrictions due to pain or other symptoms." Id. Consistency is
"[o]ne strong indication of the credibility of an individual's
statements. . . ." Id.
At the review hearing, Plaintiff testified that she was unable
to work because of pain and soreness in her joints, including
both shoulders, hands and knees. (A.R. at 27). She further
testified that it was mainly her joint pain that prevented her
from working. (A.R. at 27-28). She testified that she wears a
back brace, elbow pad and splints for both hands. (A.R. at
28-29). She stated that at least two to three days a week she
cannot get out of bed in the morning because she is so stiff.
(A.R. at 33). Plaintiff also testified that she takes several
medications for her lupus, Ultracet for pain and medication for
depression. (A.R. at 29-32).
These statements together with the medical reports indicate
that Plaintiff has presented objective medical evidence that
could support her pain allegations as required under the Cotton
test, thus meeting the initial threshold showing. Accordingly,
the ALJ correctly proceeded to the next step: to provide
specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff's
pain testimony.
The ALJ considered the evidence of Plaintiff's medical history
and physical limitations, but found the evidence insufficient to
adequately support Plaintiff's allegations of disabling pain to
the degree alleged. (A.R. at 17). The ALJ provided twelve reasons
for rejecting Plaintiffs testimony as not credible. First, the
ALJ noted that Plaintiff is not taking the kind of medication
that is usually prescribed for severe and disabling pain. (A.R.
at 17). Second, the ALJ points out that Plaintiff's medical
reports show her lupus is being medically managed. (A.R. at 17).
Third, lesions resulting from a flare-up of Plaintiff's lupus
have been found to heal over a few days. (A.R. at 17). Fourth,
Dr. Klofkorn's reports show that Plaintiff has none of the more
severe symptoms of lupus (e.g. hair loss, oral lesions, or joint
pain) other than right shoulder tenderness. (A.R. at 17). Fifth
and Sixth, the ALJ notes that her shoulder problem manifests only
a "slight decreased range of motion" and later medical reports indicate that Plaintiffs
shoulder condition is improved. (A.R. at 17). Seventh and Eighth,
the ALJ points out that Plaintiff's SLE is controlled and her
knee problems "are being treated conservatively with medication."
(A.R. at 17). Ninth and Tenth, the ALJ also points out that Dr.
Klofkorn has never placed any work restrictions on Plaintiff and
Plaintiff has never been hospitalized for any of her problems.
(A.R. at 18). Eleventh and Twelfth, the ALJ notes that the
Plaintiff did not assert she could not perform personal needs
without assistance. Finally, she was able to attend the
disability benefits hearing and testify on her own behalf. (A.R.
at 18).
The ALJ's interpretation of the Plaintiff's symptoms was sound
and supported by objective medical evidence. A review of the
ALJ's decision shows that he based his conclusion regarding
Plaintiff's credibility upon Plaintiff's testimony, her medical
history, and the reports submitted by Dr. Klofkorn. (A.R. at 18).
In the present case, in reaching his decision, the ALJ
primarily relied on only the treating physician's reports and
opinions. Moreover the ALJ cited to the lack of any disability
evaluation: "we don't have any assessments from any treatment
sources at all. There isn't even a consult in this case." (A.R.
at 39). The ALJ even held the record open for fourteen days after
the hearing in order for Plaintiff to supplement her case with
some sort of physician's report and assessment regarding her
alleged disability. (A.R. at 43-44). However, it appears that
Plaintiff failed to provide any additional information for the
ALJ to consider. (A.R. at 14). For these reasons, and based on a
review of the record provided to this Court, it appears that the
ALJ gave proper weight to the physician's conclusions and the
testimony from the Plaintiff.
The ALJ's determination that Plaintiff's allegations of severe
pain are not credible is supported by clear and convincing
reasons. The ALJ presented several reasons for rejecting
Plaintiff's claim of disabling pain. All were clear and
convincing reasons for determining that Plaintiff's pain did not
rise to the level of a disability justifying disability benefits.
The ALJ's reasons were clearly based on the medical evidence
submitted as well as Plaintiff's testimony. As such, Plaintiffs
claim of a disabling impairment is rejected and contradicts
Plaintiffs argument that the ALJ improperly discredited
Plaintiff's pain testimony. Finally, the ALJ's findings that Plaintiff has the residual
functional capacity to perform her past relevant work were
supported by substantial evidence in the record. Thus, the ALJ
committed no legal error when he determined Plaintiff was "not
under a disability as that term is defined in the Social Security
Act at any time through the date of this decision." (A.R. at 19).
After a thorough review of the record and the papers submitted
and based on the reasons set forth above, this Court finds the
ALJ's denial of benefits is supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment be DENIED and that Defendant's Cross-Motion
for Summary Judgment be GRANTED.
This Report and Recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate
Judge is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned
to the this case, pursuant to the provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objections to this
Report must be filed with the Court and served on all parties no
later than October 31, 2005. The document should be captioned
"Objections to Report and Recommendation."
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall
be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than
November 14, 2005. The parties are advised that failure to file
objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise
those objections on appeal of the Court's order. Martinez v.
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (c.1528) ~ by Gillis Mostaert the Elder…
The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (c.1528) ~ by Gillis Mostaert the Elder…
Portrait of a Young Man (c. 1530-40) by Jan Mostaert
(Dutch painter c 1474 - 1555/56)
1. Annibale Carracci: Italian servant of African ancestry (1580s).
The Tomasso Brothers, Leeds, England.
2. Jan Mostaert: "Portrait of an African man" (1525-30).
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
3. Workshop of Bronzino: "Alessandro de' Medici" (1550s).
The Uffizi Museum, Florence, Italy.
4. Alessandro Allori: "Giulia de' Medici" (alt. Ortensia de' Bardi) (1559).
The Uffizi Museum, Florence, Italy.
Showing that people of African ancestry in Renaissance Europe was not limited to slaves and servants. The Medici examples are a bit debated, as no-one really knows who duke Alessando de' Medici's mother was. But already in his life time she was said to be a Moor (North African, or Muslim Spanish). Giulia de' Medici was Alessandro's daughter.
Gillis Mostaert, Sodom and Gomorrah, 1597
Christ's Descent into Limbo c. 1528 ~ Circle of Gillis Mostaert…
Jan Mostaert - Christ Crowned with Thorns
Circle of Gillis Mostaert, Christ's Descent into Limbo, ca. 1528
1517-1520 Jan Mostaert - Portrait of a Young Gentleman
Jan Jansz Mostaert
The Adoration of the Magi
Netherlands (c. 1520)
Oil on panel, 51 × 36.5 cm.
This painting 'zooms in' on the adoration of the magi to such an extent that, as a spectator, you feel almost present at the birth. The kings bring gifts for baby Jesus, who is not in a lowly stable, but in the ruins of a palace - that of King David, where, according to legend, Jesus was born many centuries later.
Vanité du Monde (16th century) - Gillis Mostaert
Portrait of an African Man, Jan Mostaert, ca. 1525-30
Tree of Jesse by Jan Mostaert, c. 1500
ab. 1520 Jan Mostaert - Joost van Bronckhorst
Jan Mostaert, West Indies Landscape, Frans Hals Museum
"Landscape with an episode from the Conquest of America", 1535, Jan Mostaert (1475-1555), Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
I saw this in the Rijksmuseum in July, very soon after that magnificent place's reopening, and also soon after the acquisition of this Middle Ages masterpiece.
It depicts the disruption of an "idyllic" native life in "America" by violent Spanish invaders. It is unusual for its time for its clear sympathy for the Indigenous peoples, even though they are not depicted, er, at all accurately. For a start, they weren't white, and they did not hang around in the nude.
Scene of War and Fire, Gillis Mostaert, 1569
Jan Mostaert - Portrait of the Knight Abel Van Coulster
Jan Mostaert, Lamentation, based on the same theme by Geertgen tot Sint Jans
ab. 1520 Jan Mostaert - Portrait of a Lady, Presumably Anne of Bretagne
Jan Mostaert
The Expulsion of Hagar, 1520-5

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Check in from 13h / Check out prior to 11h
Affinity Roma Apartment Krakow: Find photos, reviews, information, amenities and compare prices for 4 stars hotels in Krakow, Poland.
The property is set in Krakow and is within a short walk of nearby attractions, such as Main Market Square, Cloth Hall and the National Museum Krakow. It is ideally positioned for guests wishing to visit the area's popular attractions.
Hotel description
Affinity Roma Apartment Krakow offers cosy apartments, designed to fit the requirements of any guest.
Affinity Roma Apartment Krakow is located in the heart of Krakow's entertainment district with restaurants, cafés and nightlife on the doorstep. Guests can also visit the Wawel Royal Castle and AGH University of Science and Technology.
Hotel features
Availability and Prices
Booking Site
Room Type
Per room
Per night
Per night
Users who viewed Affinity Roma Apartment Krakow also viewed these 4 stars Krakow hotels:
Best Western Premier Krakow Hotel
Ul Opolska 14a, Krakow
Ul Opolska 14a, Krakow
La Gioia Chic Angel Apartments Krakow
ul. Szlak 77, Krakow
ul. Szlak 77, Krakow
Farmona Business & Spa
ul. Jugowicka 10C, Krakow
ul. Jugowicka 10C, Krakow
Search hotels
based on


text:
Vera Keyes' "Let the Bright Tomorrow in" song
this wiki
Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you've made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Vera Keyes' "Let the Bright Tomorrow in" song is a holodisk in the Fallout: New Vegas add-on Dead Money. It contains Vera Keyes' voice, needed to unlock the elevator to the Sierra Madre vault in Heist of the Centuries.
Rather than a cassette like most holodisks, it can be found by accessing the music controls on the receptionist's terminal, found on the desk by the front doors in the lobby of the Sierra Madre hotel. Downloading the ambient music for the restaurant, executive suites and theater will add a note to your Pip-boy. This particular note is the restaurant ambient music.
You have a Holotape of Vera Keyes' melody, "Let the Bright Tomorrow in."
Activating the greeter hologram from the same terminal will play some ghostly, almost indiscernible music, presumably featuring Vera Keyes' voice.


text:
Exchange Traded Funds Overview ETF's are known as exchange traded funds. ETFs are a collection of underlying securities bundled into one product that can be bought and sold in the exchange. They are managed by mutual fund schemes or index funds and generally offer investors a way to buy into a group of securities instead of justRead More
Vaibhav VoraVaibhav holds a Finance MBA degree. A calm and peace loving person, he enjoys listening to soft music. Author:
Trading Order Types
Trading Order Types Want to trade a stock online but confused on which order type to use? Understanding the differences between different order types would put an end to the confusion. Each order type has its own way of execution and can only be used a particular way. The basic inputs for an orderRead More
Securities Transaction Tax
Securities Transaction Tax – Overview As the name suggests itself, STT (Securities Transaction Tax) is one of the multiple taxes to be paid to the Central Government of India. STT is the tax payable on the transaction value of taxable securities. In other words STT is the tax applicable to the sale / purchase of Equities, Derivatives,Read More
Investor vs Trader
Investor vs Trader The basic idea behind sharing this blog is to make the thin line difference clear between the two interrelated and generally confusing terms "Investing" & "Trading". One must have a view point before taking any step to land their capital into any kind of financial instruments like equities, bonds, government securities etc…Read More
Range Bound Options Strategies
Overview My previous blog covered various bearish views of strategies, implicating that an individual who is having a bearish view on the particular Stock/index can adopt an appropriate strategy to gain maximum profits with a fixed amount of calculated losses (if any). Similarly, in this blog we will cover Range Bound Options Strategies. These are strategies where,Read More
Popular Options Strategies
Popular Option Strategies Definition of an Option As studied earlier, an option is a contract between two parties (buyer & seller), where one party (the buyer) pays the premium to another party (seller) for the right to buy or sell an asset/ underlying at a predetermined future date at a specific price. Unlike trading other derivativeRead More
Non-linearity of options payoffs
What is an Option? An option can be said to be a contract between a buyer and a seller, where a buyer pays the premium to the seller for the right to buy (call option) or to sell (put option) an asset at a predetermined future date (expiry date) at a specific price (strike price).Read More
Trading mistakes to avoid
Trading mistakes to avoid Trading mistakes happen to each and every one of us. You might have heard the phrase "Stock markets are a guaranteed way of making profits/money." But how can someone say this and is it really true? This is a question on everyone's mind. Easy – all a person has to do isRead More


text:
Reviewed By marty t (Somerset, KY) Reviewed for a 2008 Jeep Wrangler —6/2/2016 4:53 AM
1 negative. The logo on the cargo mat broke. It has 2 plastic rods in the back to hold it on (just like all other brands). This could be glued back but who cares. The fit is perfect! Really impressed with the second row over the hump and slots for the seat frame. They are rugged construction and deep enough to hold lots of mud. We also have shifter knobs with the same tread pattern so it's suites the jeep perfect.


text:
Used Coupe - 2014 Chevrolet Camaro LT in Kirkland, Wa
Actual costs may vary.
**ACCIDENT FREE VEHICLE HISTORY**, **LEATHER INTERIOR**, **FULLY INSPECTED AND DETAILED**, and BLUE TOOTH WITH USB CONNECTOR. Are you looking for an used vehicle that is in incredible condition? Well, with this superb-looking and fun 2014 Chevrolet Camaro, you are going to get it.. Looks and smells like new. No door dings or scratches on this baby - it is immaculate. It appears that the owner has always stored this vehicle inside and given it the extra attention that a magnificent vehicle like this deserves.
- Infotainment (mylink)
- Front Headrests (adjustable)
- Front Air Conditioning Zones (single)
- Airbag Deactivation (occupant Sensing Passenger)
- Window Trim (black)
- Window Defogger (rear)
- Spare Tire Kit (inflator Kit)
- Hood Scoop
- Door Handle Color (body-color)
- Exhaust (dual Tip)
- Exhaust Tip Color (stainless-steel)
- Front Bumper Color (body-color)
- Headlights (auto On/off)
- Headlights (dusk Sensing)
- Multi-function Remote (keyless Entry)
- Multi-function Remote (panic Alarm)
- Multi-function Remote (trunk Release)
- Passenger Seat Power Adjustments (reclining)
- Power Steering (variable/speed-proportional)
- Premium Brand (boston Acoustics)
- Radio (am/fm)
- Reading Lights (front)
- Retained Accessory Power
- Side Curtain Airbags (front)
- Speed Sensitive Volume Control
- Steering Wheel (tilt And Telescopic)
- Steering Wheel Mounted Controls (audio)
- Storage (accessory Hook)
- Total Speakers (9)
- Compass
Major Accidents, Lemon History and Odometer Problems
» Get A Free CARFAX Record Check
2014 Chevrolet Camaro ReviewThis car review is specific to this model, not the actual vehicle for sale.
With design cues evocative of the legendary 1969 model, the 2013 Chevrolet Camaro combines the spirit of the classic American muscle car with the fuel efficiency, safety, handling, technology and build quality expected in a modern performance coupe. Mid-cycle enhancements for 2014 include new front and rear fascias, new headlamps and tail lamps, a unique SS hood, a unique RS front grille, new decklid and spoiler, new diffusers and exhaust tips. The Camaro is available in four trims: LS, LT, SS and ZL1. The LS and LT are powered by a 323-horsepower direct-injected 3.6-liter V6 with a six-speed manual or an optional six-speed automatic transmission. The SS's 6.2-liter V8 generates 426 horsepower with the standard six-speed manual, and 400 horsepower with the optional six-speed automatic with sequential shift control. The heart of the ZL1 is a supercharged 6.2-liter engine is rated at 580 horsepower and 556 lb.-ft. of torque. Standard equipment on all Camaros includes independent rear suspension, StabiliTrak stability control with traction control, six airbags, air conditioning, Bluetooth wireless connectivity, OnStar and SiriusXM satellite radio. The LT adds fog lights, 18-inch alloy wheels and power seats, while the SS features unique front fascia, sport suspension, Brembo brakes, electric power steering, and a limited slip differential. The ZR1's standard magnetic fluid-filled shock absorbers react instantly to road conditions and driver inputs, and Performance Traction Management, the launch control feature (manual transmission only), automatically modulates engine torque for the best-possible acceleration without excessive wheel spin. The ZL1 also features a rear-differential cooler, an integrated engine- and transmission-oil cooler, leather seating surfaces with suede microfiber inserts, distinctive front fascia and hood with air extractors, unique 20-inch forged aluminum wheels and rear-park assist with a rear-view camera display. The available RS Package includes 20-inch aluminum wheels with performance tires and distinctive high-intensity headlights with a halo ring" display. The SS Performance Package includes 20-inch black-painted wheels, 3.91 axle ratio, Performance Ride and Handling suspension, and black hood wrap. Optional equipment includes power sunroof, performance tires, Boston Acoustics sound system and a variety of exterior stripe packages. For 2014, the redesigned front fascia is more angular and flows upward, making Camaro appear wider, lower and more contemporary. All facets of the lighting system have been streamlined in appearance, with new LED Halo headlamps for a more modern, aggressive stance. Available on SS and ZL1 coupe models, new RECARO Performance Sport Seats ensure driver and passenger stay planted, thanks to larger seat bolsters. The Head-Up Display and Driver Information Center are now in color for 2LT, 2SS and ZL1 models, making them easier to read.
11930 124Th Ave Ne
Kirkland, Wa. 98034
|Toll Free:
|888-979-3521 Ext: 24544
More Cars From This Seller
2015 Nissan Murano Platinum
Mileage: 7,154
Price: $38,000
2005 Toyota Sienna Xle 7 Passenger
Mileage: 158,422
Price: Call For Price
2013 Nissan LEAF S
Mileage: 18,935
Price: $10,000
2016 Nissan Sentra S
Mileage: 479
Price: $15,999
2016 Nissan Rogue S
Price: Call For Price
2015 GMC Sierra 1500 SLT
Mileage: 6,329
Price: $38,000
2016 Nissan Sentra SR
Mileage: 1,350
Price: $19,000
2014 Nissan LEAF SV
Mileage: 20,769
Price: $11,000
2014 Mercedes-Benz E-Class E350 Luxury
Mileage: 18,892
Price: $32,000
2013 Ford Fiesta SE
Mileage: 11,592
Price: $10,000


text:
Want to see Kirk and Spock kissing? ;-), submitted by pimpmobile. NO. I DO NOT WANT TO SEE KIRK AND SPOCK KISSING. HELL NO. Unfortunately, apparently at least two other people do, as "Farfalla" and his / her partner "Maoric" have dedicated an entire website to displaying acts of heated passion between Captain Kirk and Spock gettin' it on, hot and heavy Enterprise style!
Do Jim Kirk's hazel eyes reach for my heart
As they inspire longing for his touch?
Are strict taboos all that keep us apart,
Or is it only at a dream I clutch?
His hands, they brush my arm and touch my soul
His kindness sends a shiver through my breast
My people highly value self-control
But yet, desire leaves me not at rest
Alone we are, the other crew are gone,
And all his true intentions will come clear
He holds me close, and whispers on and on,
Those gently smiling lips tickling my ear...
"My dearest friend, my Spock," the Captain sighs
And then we fell into each other's eyes.
Oh, and that's not all! Besides the homosexual Captain Kirk / Spock poetry page, there is another section crammed full of "erotic" artwork which shows off the two in their finest moments:
Thank you very much, Internet.
Don't let the winter dryness destroy your sinuses.
Remember that dog that played basketball. From the 90s
Traci Lords goes on a journey of vengeance and squibs while making the same stupid face constantly.
What is this mysterious suit-man holding?
Awful Links of the Day spotlights the worst and weirdest websites on the internet. And we're not talking "weird" in a good way either.
Copyright ©2016 Rich "Lowtax" Kyanka & Something Awful LLC.


text:
Cupid's Arrow
Think positive and kick some arse into the close!
A love struck Hoofy sings a streets a serenade
Laying everybody low with a love song that he made
Finds a streetlight, steps out of the shade
Says something like, you and me babe, how about it?
(Dire Straits)
It's been a hairy month for yours truly and in an attempt to ground myself, I went for a long run last night in Central Park. It was a gorgeous afternoon as entered the Manhattan oasis and I figured the gods were smiling on me when I tuned in to 104.3 and caught "Jack Straw" (Nassau Coliseum) on live at five. Little things like that put a smile on my face and as I ran -- and reflected -- my active keppe took a breather.
Sometimes when you look at something with such intensity, the lines of distinction tend to blur. I was attempting to chop down the Minxy trees and, all the while, there was a party in the forest. I'm not looking back (that's wasted energy) but this is a forum for sharing and if you can learn from my mistakes -- if WE can learn from them -- they'll morph into valuable lessons.
My thesis remains intact -- I believe this action is textbook bear market rally material (destined for failure) -- but my stylistic approach didn't factor in the self-fulfilling hope that springs eternal. I've got no problem with my scaling into out-of-the-money puts (it was and is consistent with my thought process) but perhaps I should have been more aggressive with identifying relative longs vs. absolute shorts. Stock picking (and sector rotation) is a critical element of successful trading and will remain so as we dance ahead.
In any event, we're approaching (yet another) crossroads, and the beauty of this business is that we're afforded opportunities on a daily basis. Until proven otherwise, this will be viewed as a healthy pullback in a bullish phase. When (if ever) will the dollar...or deflation chatter... or complacency... or the crowded long side... or the reality that the economy is no great shakes... matter? When the market is lower, that's when.
When we were kicking around the Shim Sham thesis in March, I was looking for one final whoosh lower before loading the boat for the ride higher. I am conscious of the mirror image similarities here and, as such, have been "trading around" my June puts. Should we get the blow-off higher, I want to scale into more of these bad boys. If we don't, I want to be represented in kind. YOUR risk profile and time horizon is unique and YOU must decide how to approach a cheesy squeezy should it occur. Our goal at Minyanville is to offer food for thought and cookies for dessert.
A handful of tertiary names report after the bell and tomorrow is a quiet day on the catalyst front. As such, psychology and technicals will likely be the trading metrics of choice. S&P 920ish and NDX 1120 (there now) are trendlines and the Minx is attempting to make a stand. Outside of that, BKX 800 is in the red but remains within spit up distance for a Snapper trapper (if and when).
Barring any major moves into the close, I'm likely gonna keep both legs in my fur and adhere to my stated strategy. I've rotated some risk intraday and used the slippage to make some disciplined picks but, for the most part, I'm on autopilot. I'm attempting to relieve some of the intense (self-imposed) pressure while maintaining the eye of the tiger focus. It's a thin line and I'm not sure I've identified it yet but I know it's out there, Mon Frere.
I'm gonna juggle my hats and jiggle some risk so I'm gonna leave you here. I can't tell you how much I appreciate the good vibes being sent our way from our readership and, on my word, we'll always try to make you proud. I'm particularly touched by the response to last weekend's Full Circle piece as I wasn't quite sure how it would be received. I know one thing, my friends -- there are a lot of good Minyans in our midst.
Have a peaceful night.
Todd Harrison is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Minyanville. Prior to his current role, Mr. Harrison was President and head trader at a $400 million dollar New York-based hedge fund. Todd welcomes your comments and/or feedback at firstname.lastname@example.com.
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.
Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Daily Recap Newsletter
entertainment, education and
smart market commentary.


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
June 10, 2010
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, APPELLANT,v.DAVID HOLLAND, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), entered November 26, 2008, which granted defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence and statements, reversed, on the law, the motion denied, and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, JJ.
On December 30, 2007, a team consisting of Police Officers Porras, Woodard and two others was on patrol in the vicinity of a public housing development. The area had been earmarked for patrol because of reports of drug dealing, robberies and gunshots. At approximately 1:40 a.m., the team approached a group of four to six individuals in front of 110 East 129th Street. Defendant, who was walking toward the group, changed his direction as the officers approached. Porras called out to defendant and asked him to stop. In response to Porras's questions, defendant stated that he did not live in the housing development. At Porras's request, defendant handed over photo identification. Porras testified that his investigation was complete at that point, since nothing about defendant's photo identification aroused his suspicion. Porras did not, however, return the identification to defendant. Woodard, who did not hear the conversation between Porras and defendant, began asking defendant some of the same questions put to him by Porras. Defendant became irate and punched Porras. A struggle ensued as the officers arrested defendant for assault and disorderly conduct. Upon the arrest, quantities of crack cocaine and marijuana were recovered from defendant's person. The motion court granted defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence, as well as his statements, reasoning that "[e]ven if there was a basis for initially requesting information from defendant, which there was not, any such justification was exhausted after he answered Porr[a]s who was obligated to return the identification and allow him to leave." The court further found that what it described as "continued detention" was unlawful, and defendant's reaction to it was "proportionate to the circumstances." We disagree.
Once defendant punched Officer Porras, any allegedly unlawful conduct in stopping and questioning defendant was attenuated by his calculated, aggressive and wholly distinct conduct (see People v Mercado, 229 AD2d 550 [1996]; People v Stone, 197 AD2d 356 [1993]). We distinguish People v Felton (78 NY2d 1063 [1991]), where there was no attenuation because the defendant's action in striking a police officer was in the words of the suppression court, "immediate, spontaneous and proportionate to the officer's attempt to lay hands on him when he refused to stop" (id. at 1064). Here, the police officers did not initiate any physical contact with defendant or attempt to do so before he punched Officer Porras. In this case, defendant's actions were far out of proportion to Officer Woodard's redundant questions. Hence, we disagree with the dissent's view that defendant's "minimal use of force in the attempt to get away from the officers was a direct consequence of his unlawful detention." For purposes of applying Felton, it is of no moment whether defendant punched or pushed Officer Porras, because, as stated above, the police officers did not initiate or attempt to initiate physical contact with defendant. For example, in People v Sampson (68 AD3d 1455 [2009]), the court found that a suspect's act in pushing a police officer did not dissipate the taint of an illegal stop because it was "a spontaneous reaction to [the officer's] attempt to touch him, and a direct consequence of the illegal seizure" (id. at 1458, emphasis added). In light of the foregoing, we need not resolve the issue of the legality of the police officers' stopping and questioning defendant (see Mercado, 229 AD2d at 551). All concur except Tom, J.P. and Moskowitz, J. who dissent in a memorandum by Tom, J.P. as follows: TOM, J.P. (dissenting)
While under the circumstances of this case the police had an objective credible reason to approach defendant to request information, the officers' subsequent detention of defendant exceeded the scope of the permissible inquiry and violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from undue interference with his liberty. Defendant's minimal use of force in the attempt to get away from the officers was a direct consequence of his unlawful detention and does not attenuate the illegally initiated police intrusion upon his freedom of movement.
Police officers Porras and Woodard testified at a combined Mapp/Dunaway/Huntley hearing before a judicial hearing officer. In the early morning of December 30, 2007, they were working with three other uniformed police officers "doing a perimeter check" of the area "[i]n front of 120 East 129th in the Jackie Robinson Housing Development" in upper Manhattan. Porras first noticed defendant at about 1:40 A.M. as he and the other officers entered the housing development, an area where he had made a number of prior arrests, mostly related to illegal narcotics. Defendant was walking toward a group of four to six people gathered in front of the building, as were the officers. Porras testified: "Once he saw us, he changed direction right away. That caught my attention at the time." Porras approached defendant and asked whether he lived in the area or in the development, to which defendant responded, "No." Porras continued, "He was agitated at the time of the stop, and I asked him if he had any identification on him which he said he did and he presented it to me." Although defendant's identification card was in order, Officer Porras did not return it to him.
Woodard testified he became aware that Porras "was speaking alone with an individual and the individual was becoming a little loud and irate . . . After I approached, I asked Mr. Holland if he had identification, if he lived in the development." Even though defendant had already responded to these questions, Porras did not stop Woodard's inquiry. Defendant became more irate and louder. Woodard continued, "At this point in time Officer Arslanbeck had c[o]me over." Porras testified that defendant's "agitation" worried him and he "approached" the defendant. Woodard testified that defendant then "took a closed fist and swung at Officer Porras, turned around and tried to run through myself and Officer Arslanbeck . . . At that point in time we grabbed the defendant . . . and a struggle ensued." It took four officers approximately five minutes to subdue defendant, who was placed under arrest for "Assaulting an officer, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest." He related that a bag of crack cocaine and a ziplock bag containing marijuana were recovered from defendant's person.
Porras gave a somewhat different version of the events leading up to the scuffle with defendant: "The defendant started acting very hostile. He started becoming very agitated," and took "one swing at me striking me in my shoulder, and when I flinched, he ran toward Officer Woodard. At that point, I went ahead and grabbed the defendant by the waist." During the resulting struggle, "he struck me again in the right forehead and underneath the right eye causing some swelling and small laceration." After three or four minutes, the officers were able to place defendant in handcuffs.
Defendant was charged with assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and unlawful possession of marijuana. He moved to suppress statement and physical evidence as a result of the illegal stop and detention by the police.
Supreme Court granted defendant's motion to suppress testimony concerning any statements defendant may have given, and all physical evidence recovered, on the ground that the officers who confronted defendant lacked a reason to approach him, and in any event, once defendant answered the questions put to him by Officer Porras and provided identification, "Porr[a]s' investigation was complete, since he found nothing about the identification that aroused his suspicion. Nevertheless, he did not return the identification, in this way preventing defendant from leaving . . . Porr[a]s then assisted Woodard and P.O. Robin in blocking defendant's egress . . . The continued detention was unlawful and the reaction of defendant proportionate to the circumstances. It does not attenuate the unlawful detention and render the contraband admissible."
On appeal, the People assert error in Supreme Court's finding that the police lacked a reason to approach defendant, arguing that defendant's "suspicious conduct within a crime-plagued, public housing area, late at night, only elevated the officers' predicate for inquiry." They also take issue with the court's portrayal of the officer's conduct as an "unlawful detention" of defendant, contending that Porras "was justified in his limited, non-accusatory questioning of the defendant," and assert that "Officer Woodard, in a very reasonable response to defendant's growing agitation, joined Officer Porras and unwittingly repeated Officer Porras' questions." Finally, the People dispute the court's finding that defendant's attempt to get away from the police officers was reasonable. In any event, they argue, "Defendant's striking Officer Porras was a completely independent act, which provided its own probable cause to arrest and attenuated the taint of any initial illegality from the contact between defendant and the police" (citing People v Townes, 41 NY2d 97 [1976]).
Deciding whether a search and seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment requires that a court "consider whether or not the action of the police was justified in its inception and whether or not it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible" (People v Cantor, 36 NY2d 106, 111 [1975]). While defendant does not concede the legitimacy of Porras's approach, the police are "given wide latitude to approach individuals and request information" (People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 218 [1976]), which is construed as a "minimal intrusion" on individual privacy and security requiring only "some objective credible reason for that interference not necessarily indicative of criminality" (id. at 223). Defendant's presence "after midnight in an area known for its high incidence of drug activity" and his change of direction "to avoid walking past the uniformed officers" warranted Porras's approach to inquire about defendant's identity (id. at 220). Moreover, it has been observed that the right of the police to approach an individual to request information exists even absent any concrete indication of criminality (People v Gray, 90 AD2d 405, 407 [1982]).
Analysis turns to whether the subsequent action of the police was, in the Cantor court's words, "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible" (36 NY2d at 111), i.e., to Porras's request for information as a result of defendant's abrupt change of direction. As Supreme Court observed, upon receiving defendant's identification and finding nothing suspicious about it, the objective of Porras's inquiry was fulfilled and his investigation at an end. As this Court noted in People v Barreras (253 AD2d 369, 373 [1998]), once a defendant's papers are found to be in order, the initial justification for a stop is exhausted, and the police are obligated to permit the defendant to resume his journey. The salient characteristic of a request for information is that an individual who is approached by police must always be free to simply walk away (see People v Flynn, 15 AD3d 177, 178 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 853 [2005]).
Whether defendant's continued detention was proper depends on whether the circumstances afforded Porras and his fellow officers the minimum basis for a lawful detention -- "a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot" (Cantor, 36 NY2d at 114) -- so as to elevate the permissible intrusion with defendant's liberty beyond the minimally intrusive request for information (see People v Leary, 255 AD2d 527, 528 [1998]) to the next level of interference -- the common-law right to inquire -- which "permits a somewhat greater intrusion in that a policeman is entitled to interfere with a citizen to the extent necessary to gain explanatory information, but short of a forcible seizure" (De Bour, 40 NY2d at 223). The People, however, do not contend that the officers possessed the necessary basis to elevate their inquiry to this level, which requires a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Rather, they avoid the question of detention by attempting to minimize the level of intrusion upon defendant's liberty and justify the seizure of evidence on an independent ground.
The record indicates that the officers' confrontation with defendant progressed beyond a simple request for information. Although defendant had finished answering the questions put to him by Porras, who determined that defendant's New York State identification card was in order, the officer nonetheless retained the card. The following exchange took place during the testimony of Porras at the suppression hearing:
THE COURT: Now, with that would that not necessarily complete your investigation at that point, yes or no?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: No. What else did you have to do?
THE WITNESS: At that point Officer Woodard wanted to ask him a few questions.
THE COURT: What did he ask him?
THE WITNESS: If he lived in the area as well.
THE COURT: Well, he already answered that. What else did he ask?
THE WITNESS: I don't remember anything else he asked.
On his cross examination, Woodard stated that when Porras began speaking to defendant, he and Officers Arslanbeck and Robin were some 20 to 25 feet away. Woodard confirmed that when he asked defendant if he lived in the development and requested his identification, Porras did not communicate that he had previously asked the same question and that he was already in possession of defendant's New York State identification card. Woodard stated, "Mr. Holland was being loud, boisterous . . . It appeared that I had agitated him." Within 10 or 15 seconds of Woodard's follow-up request for identification, Arslanbeck arrived. Defendant was now confronted by at least three police officers, with a three-foot-high fence directly behind him, and was being subjected to repetitive questioning, while Porras continued to hold his identification card. It is reasonable to conclude, from these circumstances, that defendant was being subjected to harassment and intimidation (cf. De Bour, 40 NY2d at 220). In any event, the circumstances of the encounter are wholly inconsistent with a belief on defendant's part that he could reasonably disregard the police and go about his business (see Florida v Bostick, 501 US 429, 434 [1991]). "An individual to whom a police officer addresses a question has a constitutional right not to respond. He may remain silent or walk or run away" (People v Howard, 50 NY2d 583, 586 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1023 [1980]).
Commendably, the People do not argue that defendant's agitation provided a founded suspicion of criminality, which is a position that the courts have rejected as devoid of merit (see People v Banks, 85 NY2d 558, 562 [1995], cert denied 516 US 868 [1995] [defendant's nervousness and minor discrepancies between his and his passenger's answers regarding their trip did not support reasonable suspicion of criminality]; People v Milaski, 62 NY2d 147 [1984]). Nor do they suggest that defendant presented any threat to the personal safety of the police. Rather, the People contend that an entirely separate justification for defendant's arrest was provided by his aggressive behavior toward Porras after Woodard questioned him and Arslanbeck arrived on the scene, which was described by Woodard as a strike with a "closed fist" landing "in the face area," and by Porras, variously, as a "punch" and a "push" to the shoulder. The officers' testimony was inconsistent with the information they recorded in their memo books, which reflect defendant's initial action as a "push."
The documentary evidence clearly showed that defendant was first detained/restrained before he tried to break away and that he pushed Porras, but had not thrown a punch at any time before he was detained. Woodard was impeached with his memo book, in which he entered, "Perp did push two AO's upon detainment," indicating himself and Porras. The entries by Porras described the events surrounding the officers' perimeter check in more detail: Multiple stopped including Holland, David DOB 11/2/84 for poss. drug sales -- perp did push (2) A/O's; upon detainment perp did punch A/O w/ closed fist, perp was resisting being put in handcuffs approx 5 min.
On cross examination, Porras stated that at the time defendant became aggressive, "I had his identification still." When counsel inquired about the circumstances resulting in defendant's arrest, Porras responded, "Yes -- well he pushed me. Pushed the officer." Asked if they were pushed because defendant was attempting to leave, Porras responded, "He was trying to -- Yeah, he was trying to go." When the court inquired, "At what point did he push you?" the witness stated, "After he spoke to Officer Woodard."
Having failed to contest the issue of unlawful detention, the People seek to use the limited force employed by defendant in his attempt to get away from the police as an independent basis for his arrest, thereby attenuating the search and seizure of the contraband found on his person from the unlawful police conduct. They argue that "defendant's striking Officer Porras was not provoked by Woodard's repetitive questions. It was an act of aggression that went far beyond the conversation the officers were attempting to have with defendant." The People rely on People v Townes, in which a suspect subjected to the unconstitutional seizure of his person pulled a gun and attempted to fire it, even after the officers had identified themselves. Under those circumstances, the Court of Appeals held that the defendant's "act was unjustified and criminal in nature (see Penal Law § 35.27) and unrelated to the initial albeit unlawful action on the part of the police" (41 NY2d at 102).
Relying on People v Felton (78 NY2d 1063 [1991]), defendant counters that his attempt to get away from the officers does not serve to attenuate the seizure from the unlawful police conduct "because it was an immediate, spontaneous and proportionate reaction to the unjustified detention." He notes that the testimony of Porras and Woodard, as well as the documentary evidence, confirms that he was prevented from departing, thereby exceeding the scope of a police request for information, and requiring suppression of the evidence obtained.
Despite some transparent attempts to elaborate upon the facts, the record is clear and supports the hearing court's determination that defendant was prevented from leaving the scene, and that his reaction was a proportionate response to the unlawful detention. Here, as Woodard questioned defendant, other officers gathered around defendant, who was backed up against a fence. There was no evidence offered at the hearing to show that the officers had kept a path open to allow him to leave at any time he wished. The memo book entries are a contemporaneous record of the officers' activities, maintained as part of their official duties, and constitute the most reliable account of their encounter with defendant. In the seven months that intervened between arrest and hearing, the officers' recollection of the incident, particularly the sequence of events, had obviously become impaired because Woodard's testimony was inconsistent with that given by Porras, and Porras could not seem to recall whether he was first punched or pushed by defendant, although he was certain that defendant was trying to get away. The arresting officers were presumably cognizant of the need to justify their detention of defendant in order to preserve the physical evidence against him. What is consistently described in the documentary evidence as a push was subsequently represented at the hearing by Porras as a punch to the shoulder and by Woodard as a punch to the face.*fn1
As noted in Cantor (36 NY2d at 112), Street encounters between the patrolman and the average citizen bring into play the most subtle aspects of our constitutional guarantees. While the police should be accorded great latitude in dealing with those situations with which they are confronted it should not be at the expense of our most cherished and fundamental rights. To tolerate an abuse of the power to seize or arrest would be to abandon the law-abiding citizen to the police officer's whim or caprice--and this we must not do. Whenever a street encounter amounts to a seizure it must pass constitutional muster.
At the time Porras completed his questioning of defendant, the purpose of the initial police approach was fulfilled. The continued retention of defendant's identification by Porras and the second series of the same questions put to defendant by Woodard elevated the degree of interference with defendant's liberty beyond the limited duration and scope permitted by a request for information (see People v Mobley, 48 AD3d 374, 375 [2008] [officers' second approach to request information was impermissible after they found nothing suspicious on their first approach]).
It was conceded by both Porras and Woodard that defendant was attempting to get away from the officers. As stated by Woodard, after pushing Porras, defendant "tried to run through myself and Officer Arslanbeck," and as stated by Porras, "Yeah, he was trying to go." The testimony establishes that after Porras completed his request for information, he was immediately joined by Woodard, and 10 to 15 seconds later by Arslanbeck; that the officers positioned themselves in front of defendant; and that defendant was standing directly in front of a three-foot fence. It is apparent from the congruous testimony of the two officers and the entries in their memo books that defendant tried to push Porras out of the way and escape between Woodard and Arslanbeck. It is equally apparent that the nature of the officers' confrontation with defendant had progressed from "basic, non-threatening questions regarding, for instance, identity, address or destination" that characterize a request for information (Barreras, 253 AD2d at 373) to "harassment or intimidation" stage (De Bour, 40 NY2d at 220) of an improper detention based on no more than vague suspicion (see Cantor, 36 NY2d at 114).
In view of the officers' concession that defendant was trying to get away from them, the documentary evidence and Porras's eventual admission at the hearing that defendant pushed him, the limited physical force used against Porras by defendant was an immediate response to his unjustified detention. It does not constitute an independent act sufficiently attenuated from the unlawful detention so as to dissipate the illegal taint associated with it (cf. Townes, 41 NY2d at 101-102), but was an immediate and direct consequence of that unlawful detention. There is thus no basis upon which to find attenuation and admit the evidence. As this Court noted in People v Packer (49 AD3d 184, 186 [2008], affd 10 NY3d 915 [2008]), While the effect of illegally initiated police intrusion may potentially become attenuated, as a practical matter there is rarely opportunity for the attenuation of primary official illegality in the context of brief, rapidly unfolding street or roadside encounters predicated on less than probable cause . . . [O]nce a wrongful police-initiated intrusion is established, suppression of closely after-acquired evidence appears to follow ineluctably.
The attempt to cite force against a police officer as an independent basis for arrest, on the theory that any such use of force is unjustified under Penal Law § 35.27, has been rejected. Where the physical response is "immediate, spontaneous and proportionate" to the unlawful police conduct, the unlawful detention is not attenuated (Felton, 78 NY2d at 1065). Whether defendant might be able to claim that he was justified in pushing past the officers or whether such defense is barred by § 35.27 is not before us on appeal, nor is it material. As the Court of Appeals has stated, "although the statute might preclude a justification defense to a charge of assault, it could not serve to transform the illegal arrest of defendant into a lawful one" (id.).
Finally, although the subsequent recovery of contraband from defendant established that Porras was correct in his hunch that defendant was in possession of illegal drugs, the propriety of a search is determined at its inception, not by its proceeds (see Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471, 484 [1963]; People v Sobotker, 43 NY2d 559, 565 [1978]). That illegal drugs were recovered from defendant is merely fortuitous.
If the tactics employed by the police against defendant are countenanced, any person might be approached, detained, intimidated, harassed, even provoked into a display of aggression and thereupon arrested, effectively eviscerating Fourth Amendment protections and "abandon[ing] the law-abiding citizen to the police officer's whim or caprice" (Cantor, 36 NY2d at 112). The Fourth Amendment serves to strike a balance between police power and individual freedom; it should not be dismissed as a hindrance to prosecution, to be dispensed with by resort to facile reasoning in the interest of sustaining a conviction.
Accordingly, the order should be affirmed.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
- 1 tbsp EVOO
- 2 ounces pancetta, chopped
- 3/4 cup brown lentils
- 1 small onion, finely chopped
- 1 carrot, diced
- 1 celery stalk, diced
- 4 cups water
- 2 tbsp tomato paste
- 1/2 bay leaf
- 1/2 tsp dried thyme or marjoram
- salt and pepper to taste
- 1 to 2 tbsp red wine vinegar
In a medium skillet, heat oil over medium heat. Add pancetta and cook until translucent, 5 minutes. Place lentils, onion, carrot, celery, water, tomato paste, bay leaf, and thyme in slow cooker. Add pancetta and stir to combine. Cover and cook on low for 7 to 9 hours, until the lentils are completely soft. Season soup with salt and pepper, then add vinegar.
Audrey's Tasks:
- Help measure and add ingredients
- Stir to combine
- Cover and turn on cooker
Mom's Tasks:
- Gather ingredients
- Saute
- Assist
Another easy and tasty meal. I had pre-cooked bacon on hand so I used that instead of pancetta. I also decided to saute the onion instead of adding it raw. I have cooked it both ways and have found I enjoy the flavor more when the onion is sauted first. The pictures you are about to see will belie the fact that I listed Audrey as helper. Maurene did an equal portion before Audrey showed up to help. I am starting to find the need to have tasks for Maurene as well. If not we all end up yelling. Stay tuned to see how easy it is to cook with two young children.


text:
Alternative Titles
Synonyms: Urarachan no Naka no Hito
Japanese: うららちゃんのナカの人
Type: Manga
Volumes: 2
Chapters: 13
Status: Finished
Published: 2010 to ?
Genres: Comedy, Ecchi, School, Seinen, Gender Bender
Authors: Sanada, Rin (Story & Art)
Serialization: Web Comic High!
Score: 6.841 (scored by 136 users)
1 indicates a weighted score. Please note that 'Not yet published' titles are excluded.
Ranked: #101872
2 based on the top manga page. Please note that 'R18+' titles are excluded.
Popularity: #10109
Members: 494
Favorites: 0


text:
Sneak Peek: Jill Zarin Hashing Things Out With Andy Cohen!
Jill Zarin was part of the sweep that let go four RHONY cast members last year when they cleaned house! Jill was very public about the firing that put her off reality TV and a year later, she will go head to head with her former boss Andy Cohen!
As we told you yesterday, Jill feels that she was let go without a chance to say goodbye. In this sneak peek video, Jill is visibly upset, on the verge of tears while she hashes things out with Andy!
Thoughts on this reunion between Andy Cohen and Jill Zarin? I think it'll be interesting to say the least, given how upset she has been in the media over Bravo firing her. Will you be watching?
Category: Jill Zarin, RHONY
So, did they change the name of the show to "WWHT"? Watch what happened, taped?Thought this was supposed to be done Monday on WWHL (LIVE)?
I always liked Jill, and Andy did side with Bethenny, they still hangout socially. I'm glad she said that he has his favorites. Glad they brought her back, HE KNEW HE MADE A MISTAKE. RHONJ was getting two million viewers without Bethenny, now they are STRUGGLING to keep a mili, Jill would have been great with the other ladies, She, Luann and Aviva would have teamed up against Ramona and Sonja
She was on NYC, not NJ…
Does Jill forget she was feeding stories to the media that she was going to quit the show —- right before she was fired. Go away Jill and let me enjoy Ramona on the show – without having to be bothered by you.
I HATE Jill Zarin!
Guess u won't be watching…
I agree they should have sent LuMan packing along with Jill. But I'm glad they kept Ramona. She's the main reason I watch the show 🙂
Somebody please…Make. Her. Go. Away!
No one gets a chance to say goodbye , when they are fired. Jill needs to go and climb under a rock. Please !!!!!!! Go away.
I have a feeling she's going to be back.
Why doesn't he have Alex and Simon on if this is only guest appearance?
If he truly hated her, Andy would not have had her to the interview.
So I think she will be back in some way.
As for Alex and Simon…I foresee alot of pissed of tweets if she does come back. LOLOL
Did Alex & Siwoman make it thru VH1's 'Couples Counceling'?
I'd be willing to bet that if this WWHL gets out of this world ratings with Jill on it, she'll be back in some capacity. If it gets -eh- ratings, which is IMO much more likely, she will be gone for good (fingers crossed!).
All Andy cares about is the $$$ 😉
WOuldn't it be funny if Andy fired Luann and replaced her with Jill? LOL
Gotta' give the gal' credit, she never gives up…..
Not to mention that no one 'forced' A.C. to have her on his show & his show, regardless of how one feels about it, has great ratings……
See I liked Jill when her and Bethenny were friends. When their friendship broke, I thought she was a pathological liar and a
b!tch. Its funny because I feel that is what happened with Teresa and Jac. (Yes, I known this is about Jill) But, can't help myself when there is a time to defend Teresa. Lol!
Similarly, Atlanta was way better when Nene & Kim (or even Nene & Sir, I mean Sheree got along).
Awkward. I mean… What. The. Eff. This is sad. She is a millionaire hurt because she's not on a reality show anymore….
I agree. She's a pitiful soul.
Jill is a cautionary tale about the dangers of reality tv fame!! PLEASE go away! Jill was fired because she made a fool of herself on television, and the viewers didn't buy her act. She was a MEAN GIRL who always wanted to pretend she was the victim. She lost a friend because she didn't feel properly appreciated-then wouldn't accept her friend's efforts to make it up to her.
Camm, what really did it for me was the way Jill constantly tried to rewrite history. It chapped me the way she acted as if viewers had no brain. She thought if she repeated lies often enough that we were stupid enough to forget what she'd actually done and buy into her "version".
If you take the names out of your story it could fit nearly any HW series. OC, BH, NJ. You know? Thats why im iffy on how much editing was involed with jill. The thing is.. the cancer thing happened, the refusing to speak to bethanny happened, and the dog show she was on. Hard to excuse that behavior editing or not.
funny Say What-when I was writing that post, I thought the same thing! Could be describing any of the HW's shows!
However…Jill was awful on twitter, she reviewed her own book under a fake name, she lied…she was just a fame whore gone overboard. Ramona was her friend and she tried so hard to paint her as a crazy drunk. I just can't believe Andy is even entertaining bringing her back! If he does, I hope it's on her own show so I can ignore it lol.
The only interesting thing about Jill was Bethenny, and she blew that!!
I would not be surprised if we saw Jill back next season is some way. I don't know why, but I can see them bringing her back as a "friend" of a wife. God knows they need to do something!
I never thought I'd say this- but I would prefer Jill to Ramona.
I actually think the season would have been more enjoyable if Ramona wasn't on it.
I actually think Jill AND Ramona together is the only way the show is any good. Jill makes Ramona look a little more sane.. While Ramona makes jill go crazy.. lol
I may not have liked Jill per se but I liked to watch her. I had mad sympathy for her after hate blogs sprouted up and bloggers got involved in the show just to hurt her. But I also liked Alex.
she lied about Bethenny knowing Bobby had cancer- all she said was he was having a procedure. Anyone who lies about cancer doesn't get a second or in Jill's case a 14th chance with me EVER not after what it has done to my family. so say your formal goodbye and go away get a hobby and never appear on my tv screen again.
I also remember her campaign to run Alex off. She was always trying to pull something shady on someone. Good riddance.
True, i forgot about that. I still cant help but wonder how much of this is editing though. But then i remember that dog show Jill was on when she basicly humiliated her friend because her dog peed indoors. That was terrible!
She is still out there making comments about how the show is uninteresting now, how the ratings have dropped, how Bravo made a huge mistake firing her, etc. She claims to be supportive, but just as she showed with Bethenny, she cannot be supportive of people having more success than her. I'm sure she is a nice-(ish) person in real life, but it seems evident that "fame" brings out the worst in her.
Really? Let it go Jill. Just a piece of advice, do not ever wear that dress again!
Eek, so true. Jill, YOU ARE EMBARRASSING YOURSELF! Go back to being whatever it was you were before the housewives, since according to you, whatever that was was splendid.
Wow she looks good! I really wanted her and Bethenny to make up 🙁
Btw….did I miss this episode already? When is it on?
It airs monday. Pre-recorded. Probably because they cant trust Jill on live TV. She will blurt out crazy shit and make Andy Cohen look bad. He cant have that LOL
I think it's funny that it's pre-recorded. And what the heck has Jill done to her face? Verrrry round and puffy.
What. The. F*ck. why are they even giving her the time of day? She got fired……and here she is basically begging for her job back!! Give me a friggin break!!!
She looks so desperate. I hope Andy doesn't back down.
what did lynn do other than what we do on here? trolling away lol i never followed her blog that closely.
She did a lot more then trolling. But I wont go into it considering she passed away. I disagree with the above poster and I have good reason too but i'm not going to argue over it. Probably a lot of the information still on google if you really want to look it up.
yes, it's always sad when someone dies. especially when they have family and friends that miss them. passing away is still no excuse with what type of life you've lived and what type of personality you had. from what i understand lynn wasn't a saint when she was on this earth. there's alot of things i've heard of what she has done and she can be considered a bully as well. you want to be a loyal friend and fan of lynn then i respect that. just don't forget that lynn took part in many dramatics.
Normally I agree with you Srt_3 (#teamteresa) and I know I'm in the minority here, but I actually like Jill. I always found her direct attitude refreshing. And she & Ramona always gave eachother a run for their money. I'd rather her be there than CrayCray Aviva.
They need to being Jill back. He got in my very last nerve but homegirl had personality!! These 3 new girls have the personality of head of lettuce!!!
I have to agree with you Anna. I like Jill.
it's true. i don't like jill but she did bring entertainment to the show with her antics but maybe her antics is what got her fired. she was trying to get bethanny off the show and it backfired. she does seem desperate now trying to get back on and still feeling hurt over the firing. it's really ridiculous up to this point. she needs to just move on like the rest of the housewives that have been fired or left over the years.
Well this for you Jill Andy did not let you say good-by. Will Good-by and don't let the door hit you in your a$$.


text:
Skinny Puppy - Mythmaker 12"
Out of Stock
Mythmaker is the tenth studio album by industrial group Skinny Puppy. It was released in January, 2007. Lead vocalist Nivek Ogre said the band took a simplified approach, but that it was a difficult record to make. It charted on a number of billboard charts, and received mostly positive reviews, with critics focusing on whether it was stylistically similar to previous albums.


text:
Cute and clean ranch house on a great family street. Big deck and fenced in private yard.
Much of Northern New Jersey is considered part of the Greater New York City metropolitan area. Jerseyans, however, never struggle with identity crises. Nor do they need to cross state lines to experience cultural activities, the arts, hometown pro sports--or their beloved 24-hour diners.Scoprite di più sugli immobili di prestigio a New Jersey