Indig v. IndigIndig v. Indig
Versions:90 A.D.3d 1050934 N.Y.2d 843
Blackstone‘s Law, our law-making entity, has several rules to follow when converting legal documents to clean HTML. The user wants me to process two pages of a legal document, specifically focusing on the main opinion “Matter of Shulem Indig, Respondent, v Chaya Indig...“.
However, looking at Page 1, there is a partial opinion at the top (ending with “Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Belen, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.“).
Then there is a case caption: “In the Matter of SHULEM INDIG, Respondent, v CHAYA INDIG, Also Known as CHAYA KENIG, Appellant. [934 NYS2d 843]“.
Then Page 2 continues with the body of this Indig case.
At the bottom of Page 2, another case starts: “In the Matter of GAWEN M., ...“.
According to the “Multi-Opinion Documents” rule: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), 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.”
So, I should skip the text at the top of Page 1.
I will start with the “Matter of Shulem Indig” case.
**Case 1: Matter of Shulem Indig**
- Case Name: In the Matter of SHULEM INDIG, Respondent, v CHAYA INDIG, Also Known as CHAYA KENIG, Appellant.
- Short Name: Indig v. Indig (Following Bluebook: first party v. first opposing party. Indig v. Indig)
- Docket: Not explicitly given in the text as a “No. X” but there is a citation: [934 NYS2d 843].
- Court: Likely New York Appellate Division, Second Department (given the judges Skelos, Angiolillo, etc., and the citation style). I should check if it‘s explicitly stated. It‘s not in the visible snippet, but the context of the names and citation points to N.Y. App. Div.
- Date: Not explicitly given.
- Citation: 934 NYS2d 843
Wait, the prompt says “If input is not a legal opinion, return only: null“. This is definitely a legal opinion.
The prompt says “Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“.
**Metadata Extraction:**
- Case Name: In the Matter of SHULEM INDIG, Respondent, v CHAYA INDIG, Also Known as CHAYA KENIG, Appellant.
- Short Name: Indig v. Indig
- Citation: 934 NYS2d 843
- Court: N.Y. App. Div. (derived from judges and citation, but if not in text, I should be careful. Actually, the prompt says “Preserve formatting exactly“).
- Docket: Not found.
Let‘s look at the body text starting on Page 1:
“In the Matter of SHULEM INDIG, Respondent, v CHAYA INDIG, Also Known as CHAYA KENIG, Appellant. [934 NYS2d 843]—”
Page 2 content:
“The determination of visitation issues is entrusted to the sound discretion of the Family Court, and must be based upon the best interests of the child (see Matter of Wiebke v Wiebke, 77 AD3d 964, 964 [2010]; Matter of Ciccone v Ciccone, 74 AD3d 1337, 1338 [2010]; Matter of Thompson v Yu-Thompson, 41 AD3d 487, 488 [2007]). The Family Court‘s determination will not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Larkin v White, 79 AD3d 751, 751 [2010]; Matter of Wiebke v Wiebke, 77 AD3d at 964; Matter of Ciccone v Ciccone, 74 AD3d at 1338).
The Family Court‘s determination that it would be in the children‘s best interests to direct the mother to ensure that, during visitation, the children abide by the rules of their respective Satmar Hasidic community schools whenever possible has a sound and substantial basis in the record, which includes a stipulation entered into by the parties (see Matter of Powell v Blumenthal, 35 AD3d 615, 617 [2006]; Matter of Booth v Booth, 8 AD3d 1104, 1106 [2004]; Lebovich v Wilson, 155 AD2d 291, 291 [1989]; Matter of Bentley v Bentley, 86 AD2d 926, 927 [1982]).
The parties’ remaining contentions and those of the attorney for the children are without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.”
**Citations to wrap:**
1. Matter of Wiebke v Wiebke, 77 AD3d 964, 964 [2010]
2. Matter of Ciccone v Ciccone, 74 AD3d 1337, 1338 [2010]
3. Matter of Thompson v Yu-Thompson, 41 AD3d 487, 488 [2007]
4. Matter of Larkin v White, 79 AD3d 751, 751 [2010]
5. Matter of Wiebke v Wiebke, 77 AD3d at 964 (short)
6. Matter of Ciccone v Ciccone, 74 AD3d at 1338 (short)
7. Matter of Powell v Blumenthal, 35 AD3d 615, 617 [2006]
8. Matter of Booth v Booth, 8 AD3d 1104, 1106 [2004]
9. Lebovich v Wilson, 155 AD2d 291, 291 [1989]
10. Matter of Bentley v Bentley, 86 AD2d 926, 927 [1982]
**Pagination:**
- Page 1 ends during the case caption.
- Page 2 starts at “The determination of visitation issues...“.
- Page 1 number is 1050.
- Page 2 number is 1051.
**Reflowing:**
- Rejoin “respec- tive” -> “respective”
- Rejoin “stip- ulation” -> “stipulation”
**Structure:**
- `
` for case info.
- `
` block as Case Name.
The citation “[934 NYS2d 843]” will be in the `
` block as Citation.
Wait, the prompt says: “Include ALL content before the main opinion text: Syllabus / “Held:” sections, Headnotes, Attorney listings... Any other prefatory material.”
The caption “In the Matter of SHULEM INDIG...” is prefatory material.
But it‘s also Case Info.
The Instructions say: “Omit elements without data; Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“.
So I should NOT put the caption in the body if it‘s in the metadata.
However, the citation “[934 NYS2d 843]—” is at the end of the caption line.
I‘ll put it in metadata.
Wait, the “Gawen M.” case caption is at the bottom of Page 1051.
Since it‘s a “Multi-Opinion Document“, and Indig is the main one (it has a body), I should only output the Indig opinion.
Final check on citations:
Matter of Wiebke v Wiebke, 77 AD3d 964, 964 [2010]
cite=“77 AD3d 964”
pinpoint=“964”
court=“N.Y. App. Div.”
date=“2010”
Short form:
Matter of Wiebke v Wiebke, 77 AD3d at 964
cite=“77 AD3d 964”
pinpoint=“964”
court=“N.Y. App. Div.”
type=“short”
One word in OCR was “Wiebkev“. It should be “Wiebke v“. I‘ll fix it according to the image.
Page 1050:
Caption: In the Matter of SHULEM INDIG, Respondent, v CHAYA INDIG, Also Known as CHAYA KENIG, Appellant. [934 NYS2d 843]
Wait, the image for 1050 has some black bars.
The text for the Indig caption is:
“In the Matter of SHULEM INDIG, Respondent, v CHAYA INDIG, Also Known as CHAYA KENIG, Appellant. [934 NYS2d 843]—”
There is a dash after the citation.
Let‘s build the HTML.
```html
The Family Court‘s determination that it would be in the children‘s best interests to direct the mother to ensure that, during visitation, the children abide by the rules of their respective Satmar Hasidic community schools whenever possible has a sound and substantial basis in the record, which includes a stipulation entered into by the parties (see Matter of Powell v Blumenthal, 35 AD3d 615, 617 [2006]; Matter of Booth v Booth, 8 AD3d 1104, 1106 [2004]; Lebovich v Wilson, 155 AD2d 291, 291 [1989]; Matter of Bentley v Bentley, 86 AD2d 926, 927 [1982]).
The parties’ remaining contentions and those of the attorney for the children are without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.
``` Wait, I missed the judges in the metadata. Actually, the prompt says “p.midpage-judge“. And the concurring judges are usually at the end. The instruction “Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body” applies to Case Name, Docket, Court, Date, Citation. The signature block at the end is part of the opinion body. However, the prompt also mentions: ```html ``` in the `` block.
Usually, the judges’ names like “Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Miller, JJ.” at the very end of an opinion are formatted as a signature block in this system? Or just as a paragraph?
The instruction says:
```html
```
This looks like it‘s for the single judge signing.
For Appellate Division concurrences, they are often just the last line of the opinion.
I‘ll treat the list of judges as a paragraph if it‘s inline with “concur“.
Wait, look at the end of Page 1051.
“Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.”
I‘ll keep this in the body.
The court name “Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York” is not in the text but is standard for this reporter and these judges. I will use the abbreviation `N.Y. App. Div.` in the `court` attribute.
Wait, I should check if there‘s any other prefatory material I missed.
On page 1050, the caption is followed by a horizontal line.
Then the opinion body starts on 1051.
I‘ll put the page marker `1050` at the start, and `1051` where the text begins.
Actually, the caption is on 1050.
So:
```html
` (where X is the first page number)“.
The caption is on 1050. The body text is on 1051.
So:
```html
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
...
...