Carillon Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLP v. FoxCarillon Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLP v. Fox
Versions:118 A.D.3d 933989 N.Y.S.2d 68
Stevenson thoughtly
The user wants to convert a legal document from provided PDF screenshots and OCR into clean, semantic HTML.
1. **Identify the main opinion**:
- The PDF starts with the end of one case (page 933, top).
- A new case starts on page 933: “CARILLON NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLP, Respondent, v GEORGE FOX et al., Appellants. [989 NYS2d 68]“.
- Another case starts on page 935: “ANTHONY CLARKE, Respondent, v SKY EXPRESS, INCORPORATED...“.
- The instructions say: “For multi-opinion documents, convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.”
- The main opinion to convert is the one starting with “CARILLON NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLP v GEORGE FOX et al.”
2. **Extract Case Information**:
- Case Name: Carillon Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLP v. George Fox et al.
- Short Name: Carillon Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLP v. Fox
- Docket: [989 NYS2d 68] (This is actually a citation. Looking at the text: “appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Asher, J.), dated December 19, 2012“). The citation is 989 N.Y.S.2d 68. There isn‘t a specific docket number like “No. 12345” provided in the header, but the text mentions an order from Suffolk County.
- Court: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department (implied by the judges Rivera, Chambers, Cohen, Miller). Reporter “AD3d” also confirms this is the Appellate Division, 2nd Dept.
- Date: December 19, 2012 (date of order appealed from), but the reporter volume suggests a later publication date. Actually, let‘s look at the judges: Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Cohen and Miller, JJ.
- Citation: 989 N.Y.S.2d 68.
3. **Process Text**:
- Start page: 933.
- “In an action, inter alia, to recover CPLR 5015 (a) `
- Oller v Liberty Lines Tr., Inc., 111 AD3d 903, 904 [2013] -> ``
- Schenk v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 108 AD3d 661, 662 [2013] -> ``
- Gross v Johnson, 102 AD3d 921, 922 [2013] -> ``
- Vardaros v Zapas, 105 AD3d 1037, 1038 [2013] -> ``
- Bazoyah v Herschitz, 79 AD3d 1081, 1082 [2010] -> ``
- Kolajo v City of New York, 248 AD2d 512 [1998] -> ``
- Santiago v Santana, 54 AD3d 929, 930 [2008] -> ``
- Dave Sandel, Inc. v Specialized Indus. Servs. Corp., 35 AD3d 790, 791 [2006] -> ``
- Edwards v Feliz, 28 AD3d 512 [2006] -> ``
- Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568, 569 [1997] -> ``
- Okumus v Living Room Steak House, Inc., 112 AD3d 799 [2013] -> ``
- Kirkland v Fayne, 78 AD3d 660 [2010] -> ``
- Siltan v City of New York, 300 AD2d 298 [2002] -> ``
- Santiago v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 10 AD3d 393, 394 [2004] -> ``
- Kolajo v City of New York, 248 AD2d 512 [1998] -> `` (repeat)
- Beneficial Homeowner Serv. Corp. v Girault, 60 AD3d 984, 985 [2009] -> ``
- Green Point Sav. Bank v 794 Utica Ave. Realty Corp., 242 AD2d 602, 602-603 [1997] -> ``
- Reilly-Whiteman, Inc. v Cherry Hill Textiles, 191 AD2d 486 [1993] -> ``
- Chusid v Silvera, 110 AD3d 659, 660 [2013] -> ``
- Matter of Klass v City of New York, 103 AD3d 800, 802 [2013] -> ``
- Provident Bank v Giannasca, 55 AD3d 812 [2008] -> ``
5. **Reflow**:
- Rejoin “proces- sors” to “processors” (found in first paragraph of 933 - but that‘s the end of a previous case. I should skip it).
- Rejoin “sum- mary” to “summary” (previous case).
- The main case starts with “Carillon Nursing...”
- Check for hyphenations:
- “grant- ing” -> “granting” (933)
- “defend- ants” -> “defendants” (933)
- “de- fendants” -> “defendants” (934)
- “de- fendants‘” -> “defendants‘” (934)
- “san- tana” -> “santana” (934)
- Straight quotes: “plaintiff‘s” instead of curly.
6. **Pagination**:
- First page for this case: 933.
- Second page: 934.
- Third page: 935.
7. **Structure**:
- ``
- ``
- Caption content.
- Opinion body.
8. **Double check for “MAIN opinion“**:
- The document has one full opinion starting at “CARILLON NURSING...” and ending at judges list on 935.
- The first part of page 933 is the end of an opinion (Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur).
- The second part of 935 is the start of a new case “ANTHONY CLARKE...“.
- The instructions say: “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” This refers to the Liberman v Gelstein portion.
- The instruction “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.”
- Actually, both Carillon and Anthony Clarke are “complete“. Usually “main” means the first complete one encountered. Let‘s look at the instruction again. “Convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.”
- I will convert the Carillon case.
9. **Attribute Extraction**:
- Case: CARILLON NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLP v. GEORGE FOX et al.
- Short: Carillon Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLP v. Fox
- Court: N.Y. App. Div. (or more specifically N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dept.)
- Date: Since the reporter is 2014-ish (looking at the citations like 2013), and the order appealed is Dec 2012, let‘s look for a decision date. The judge list matches the panel. The text doesn‘t explicitly state the decision date in the provided snippet headers (just the appealed order date). I will look at the provided text.
- The citation provided is [989 NYS2d 68].
- Usually, the decision date is given at the start. It is missing from the scan. I‘ll use the year from the most recent citation or leave blank if unknown. Wait, checking the reporter 989 N.Y.S.2d 68. This is from March 2014.
- Actually, I‘ll provide metadata based on the text.
Let‘s begin.
Case name: CARILLON NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLP, Respondent, v GEORGE FOX et al., Appellants.
Citation: 989 NYS2d 68
Body text:
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Asher, J.), dated December 19, 2012, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to vacate a judgment of the same court entered March 29, 2012, upon an order of the same court dated October 4, 2011, granting the plaintiff‘s unopposed motion for leave to enter a default judgment, in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $52,458.96.
Ordered that the order dated December 19, 2012, is affirmed, with costs.
...
In a so-ordered stipulation...
Page 934:
To vacate the judgment...
Moreover, to successfully oppose...
Page 935:
on appeal and, accordingly, are not properly before this Court...
Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.
Citation check:
Oller v Liberty Lines Tr., Inc., 111 AD3d 903, 904 [2013]
Schenk v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 108 AD3d 661, 662 [2013]
Gross v Johnson, 102 AD3d 921, 922 [2013]
...
Note: “AD3d” is “N.Y. App. Div.”
Metadata:
shortName=“Carillon Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLP v. Fox”
court=“N.Y. App. Div.”
citation=“989 NYS2d 68”
date=“2014” (based on N.Y.S.2d reporter timeline for 989).
Wait, looking at the Judges list on 935: “Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.”
The decision is per curiam or memorandum.
Let‘s refine the case name: “CARILLON NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLP, Respondent, v GEORGE FOX et al., Appellants.”
Docket: Not explicitly provided in the snippets other than citations.
One detail: on page 933, there‘s a black bar.
The snippet on 933 shows the end of one case, then a black bar, then “CARILLON...“.
Then page 934 has a black bar at the top too.
Then page 935 has a black bar at the top, then the end of the Carillon case, then a separator bar, then “ANTHONY CLARKE...“.
I will follow the prompt and convert the MAIN opinion (Carillon).
Final check on citation normalization:
CPLR 5015 (a) -> CPLR 5015 (a)
NYS2d -> 989 NYS2d 68.
Wait, looking at the OCR for page 1:
“Carillon Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLP, Respondent, v George Fox et al., Appellants. [989 NYS2d 68]—”
The citation is given in brackets.
Let‘s write the HTML.