Rockhead v. Troche

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Apr 5, 2005

Versions:17 A.D.3d 118

791 N.Y.S.2d 823

2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3446

Henry v. State, 452 So. 2d 52, 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Wait, the prompt says: “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.” - Opinion 1 (Henderson/Van Norstrand): Partial. Starts with “to break locks...” and ends with “offense.” It doesn‘t have a caption at the start. - Opinion 2 (Rockhead): Complete. Has caption “ELIZABETH ROCKHEAD... v NELSON TROCHE...” and ends with JJ signature. - Opinion 3 (Banca Di Roma): Partial. Has caption and start of facts, but text cuts off. So I should only convert **Rockhead v. Troche**. Wait, the Rockhead case starts at the bottom of page 118 and ends at the top of page 119. Caption: `Elizabeth Rockhead, as Administratrix of the Estate of Malicia N. Rockhead, Deceased, Respondent, v Nelson Troche, Defendant, and City of New York, Appellant. Kirkland Rockhead, Respondent, v Nelson Troche, Defendant, and City of New York, Appellant. [791 NYS2d 823]` Body: `Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George D. Salerno, J.)... Sullivan and Williams, JJ.` The Banca Di Roma case follows. I will process **Rockhead v. Troche**. **Case Info Extraction:** - Case Name: ELIZABETH ROCKHEAD, as Administratrix of the Estate of MALICIA N. ROCKHEAD, Deceased v. NELSON TROCHE - Short Name: Rockhead v. Troche - Court: N.Y. App. Div. (This is from the context of New York reports 118-119, Appellate Division, First Department usually, but let‘s stick to info present). The citation 791 NYS2d 823 is NY Appellate Division. - Citation: 791 NYS2d 823 - Date: No date in the caption block, but the Order being appealed is April 13, 2004. However, reporter dates are usually at the top of the section (not visible). I will omit date if not found. - Docket: Not provided. Wait, looking at the layout, Rockhead is a memorandum decision. The block at the top of 118 is the end of another case (People v. ...). The block at the bottom of 119 is the start of Banca Di Roma. So the document contains: 1. Fragment of Case A. 2. Complete Case B (Rockhead). 3. Start of Case C (Banca Di Roma). I will output Case B. **Refining Case Info for Rockhead:** Case Name: ELIZABETH ROCKHEAD, as Administratrix of the Estate of MALICIA N. ROCKHEAD, Deceased, Respondent, v NELSON TROCHE, Defendant, and CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. KIRKLAND ROCKHEAD, Respondent, v NELSON TROCHE, Defendant, and CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. Short name: Rockhead v. Troche Citation: 791 NYS2d 823 Court: N.Y. App. Div. (based on NYS2d citation and “AD2d” refs in the text). Docket: [791 NYS2d 823] (This is the citation, not docket, but often used in these reporters). Let‘s check the Banca case. `Banca Di Roma, Appellant, v Mutual of America Life Insurance Company, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.) [793 NYS2d 341]` Judgment: Sept 5, 2003. It ends mid-sentence: “purchased the adjoining” So Rockhead is the only “Complete” one in the provided screenshots (though short). Wait, the prompt says “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.” Rockhead has a caption and a full body (ends with Concur—Saxe... JJ.). Let‘s do Rockhead. **Rockhead v Troche:** (Caption) Order... There are issues... Concur... Wait, the caption for Rockhead is at the bottom of 118. The order text for Rockhead is at the top of 119. Then the caption for Banca Di Roma is below Rockhead‘s “JJ” block on 119. Then the text for Banca Di Roma is below that. I will convert Rockhead. Actually, looking at the snippet, the Henderson/Van Norstrand section (the first fragment) is a continuation of an opinion. The Rockhead section is a complete (though short) memorandum decision. The Banca Di Roma section is the start of a longer opinion. Since Rockhead is complete in this document, I will focus on it. Wait, if “Main” refers to the one that takes up the most space or is the primary subject of the PDF... In these reporter pages, they are just a series of entries. Rockhead is the only one that begins and ends within the provided text. One detail: “ELIZABETH ROCKHEAD... [791 NYS2d 823]” is on page 118. The text “Order, Supreme Court...” is on page 119. The “Concur...” block ending Rockhead is on page 119. Wait, look at page 119. There is a black bar at the top. Then the text “Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County...” Then “There are issues of fact...” Then “Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.” Then a black box/separator. Then “Banca Di Roma...” So Rockhead‘s body is the first half of page 119. Rockhead‘s caption is at the bottom of 118. Okay, let‘s format Rockhead. Case Info: Short name: Rockhead v. Troche Case name: ELIZABETH ROCKHEAD, as Administratrix of the Estate of MALICIA N. ROCKHEAD, Deceased, Respondent, v NELSON TROCHE, Defendant, and CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. KIRKLAND ROCKHEAD, Respondent, v NELSON TROCHE, Defendant, and CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. Citation: 791 NYS2d 823 Court: N.Y. App. Div. Body: Paragraph 1: Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George D. Salerno, J.), entered April 13, 2004, which denied defendant City‘s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of both complaints, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Paragraph 2: There are issues of fact... [citations] ... Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Williams, JJ. Wait, usually “Concur...” is a separate paragraph or block at the end. Let‘s check the citations in Rockhead: - Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [e] -> NY law. - Spalla v Village of Brockport, 295 AD2d 900 [2002] -> NY case. - Saarinen v Kerr, 84 NY2d 494, 501 [1994] -> NY case. - Lopez v Town of Gates, 249 AD2d 934 [1998] -> NY case. Wait, the first fragment on page 118 is also a full opinion text (People v. ... something), it just starts in the middle. The user instruction says “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” So I skip the Henderson/Van Norstrand/Gonzalez fragment. I convert Rockhead. I skip the Banca Di Roma fragment because it is incomplete. One more check: Is Banca Di Roma complete? It says “purchased the adjoining” at the bottom of page 119. No, it‘s cut off. So I only output Rockhead. Wait, look at page 118 bottom. The caption for Rockhead: `ELIZABETH ROCKHEAD, as Administratrix of the Estate of MALICIA N. ROCKHEAD, Deceased, Respondent, v NELSON TROCHE, Defendant, and CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. KIRKLAND ROCKHEAD, Respondent, v NELSON TROCHE, Defendant, and CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. [791 NYS2d 823]` Note: The black squares are separators between cases in the reporter. HTML Structure:

Rockhead Case Info

(Rockhead‘s body starts on 119, but I should check if there‘s any text before the page break). No, the caption is the last thing on 118.

Order...

There are issues...

Concur...

(Or just a p) Wait, “Concur—...” is usually treated as a signature block or at least a concluding line. One correction: The caption on 118 has a black square before it. The “ELIZABETH ROCKHEAD...” text is ALL CAPS for the names. Let‘s look at the citations in Rockhead: Spalla v Village of Brockport, 295 AD2d 900 [2002] Saarinen v Kerr, 84 NY2d 494, 501 [1994] Lopez v Town of Gates, 249 AD2d 934 [1998] Law citations: Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [e] Wait, the prompt says “Convert the provided legal document... Skip partial content... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” Rockhead is the only complete one. Wait, look at the Henderson fragment on 118. It is just the end of a case. Rockhead is a full memorandum decision. Case Name formatting: “Rockhead v. Troche” (Short name). ShortName rule: “first party v. first opposing party, standard abbreviations, omit ‘et al.’ and procedural phrases“. “ELIZABETH ROCKHEAD... v NELSON TROCHE” -> Rockhead v. Troche. Docket: Not clearly defined, but [791 NYS2d 823] is in that slot. I‘ll omit docket if it‘s just a citation. Wait, the prompt says: “Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“. So the caption text at the bottom of 118 goes into the metadata. Page marker placement: Bottom of 118 has the caption. Page 119 starts with the Order. So `` goes after ``. Then the text of the opinion. Wait, if the text of the opinion only starts on 119, where do I put the 118 marker? The caption is content. But the instructions say “Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“. If I extract the caption to metadata, and there is no other content on 118 for this case, then 118 contains no “body” text for this opinion. However, in New York reports, the caption is technically part of the “case” as published. Usually, I include the syllabus/headnotes in pre-opinion content. Rockhead doesn‘t have a syllabus, just the caption and then the decision. I will treat the caption as metadata and start the body with page 119. Wait, is there any Rockhead text on 118 besides the caption? No. Is there any Banca text on 119 besides the caption? Yes, “Judgment, Supreme Court...“. Hold on. If I only output Rockhead, it‘s very short. Is Rockhead the “Main” opinion? It‘s a memorandum decision. The Henderson one is the end of a longer opinion (maybe). The Banca one is the start of a longer opinion. In these volumes, each entry is an “opinion“. If the document (the PDF provided) contains three things, and only Rockhead is complete, I follow the rule: “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” Rockhead fits this. Henderson is missing the caption. Banca is missing the end of the body. Citation tagging: Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [e] Spalla v Village of Brockport, 295 AD2d 900 [2002] -> Note on brackets in NY cites: [2002] is standard for NY reports. Saarinen v Kerr, 84 NY2d 494, 501 [1994] -> Lopez v Town of Gates, 249 AD2d 934 [1998] -> Concur line: Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Williams, JJ. I will put the concurrence in a signature-style block or just a paragraph. It lists the judges. Wait, I need to check if there is a date for the Rockhead opinion itself. Usually, these pages have a date at the top of a group of cases (e.g., “Decided January 20, 2005“). It‘s not visible here. I‘ll check the citation: 791 N.Y.S.2d 823 is from 2005 (Appellate Division, First Department, January 20, 2005). Since the date isn‘t on the page, I shouldn‘t hallucinate it unless I can find it in the text. The text mentions “Order... entered April 13, 2004“. That‘s the date of the order being appealed. I‘ll skip the `date` attribute in metadata if it‘s not explicitly on the page. One more check on Henderson: It has “People v Henderson (41 NY2d 233 [1976])” in the text. The fragment ends with “greater offense.” It‘s definitely the end of an opinion. One more check on Banca Di Roma: Caption: Banca Di Roma... Judgment, Supreme Court... In 1993, plaintiff purchased... purchased the adjoining It‘s definitely the start of an opinion. So Rockhead is the target. Wait, looking at the layout, Rockhead is so short it‘s just two paragraphs. But it has a caption and a full signature (Concur JJ). I‘ll convert it. Wait, looking at 118. The Rockhead caption is preceded by a black square. The Henderson fragment is at the top. The Henderson fragment ends. Then there is a black square. Then Rockhead caption. Then page break. Then Rockhead body. Then Concur. Then black square. Then Banca caption. The prompt says “If input is not a legal opinion, return only: null“. This is definitely a legal opinion (or several). Refining metadata: Case Name: ELIZABETH ROCKHEAD, as Administratrix of the Estate of MALICIA N. ROCKHEAD, Deceased, Respondent, v NELSON TROCHE, Defendant, and CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. KIRKLAND ROCKHEAD, Respondent, v NELSON TROCHE, Defendant, and CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. Short Name: Rockhead v. Troche Court: N.Y. App. Div. (derived from NYS2d and AD2d context). Actually, the reporter 791 NYS2d 823 is indeed the Appellate Division. Citation: 791 NYS2d 823 Body: (The caption is technically the start of the case content on page 118). If I move the caption to metadata, then page 118 only contains the end of the previous case. But I must include “ALL content before the main opinion text... Syllabus / ‘Held:’ sections... any other prefatory material.” The caption is prefatory material. However, the instructions say “Omit elements without data... Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“. This usually implies the caption itself is moved to the metadata block. But page markers must be placed at word boundaries. If the case starts on 118 (caption) and body is on 119, I should probably put `` at the start of any content belonging to that case. If the caption is the only thing on 118, and it‘s extracted to metadata, then I start the body on 119. Wait, I should check the Henderson part again. Is it possible the user wants the whole document converted as a single stream? “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion“. “Main opinion” in a reporter snippet usually means the one that is complete. Rockhead is the only complete one. Let‘s double check if Banca Di Roma is the main one. It starts on 119 and likely continues. But we only have the start. Rockhead is self-contained in these two pages. I will proceed with Rockhead. One detail: The caption for Rockhead on 118 mentions `[791 NYS2d 823]`. That‘s the citation. Final check on tags: Wait, no, Rockhead doesn‘t cite Henderson. Rockhead cites Spalla, Saarinen, and Lopez. Wait, Henderson is cited in the first fragment (People v. ...). Since I‘m skipping the first fragment, I don‘t tag Henderson. Wait, Henderson is mentioned in the first fragment‘s text: “In a case similar to this one, People v Henderson...“. Since I am skipping that fragment, I don‘t need to worry about it. In Rockhead: Spalla v Village of Brockport, 295 AD2d 900 [2002] Saarinen v Kerr, 84 NY2d 494, 501 [1994] Lopez v Town of Gates, 249 AD2d 934 [1998] Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [e] I‘ll use `cite=“N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1104(e)“` Also, “George D. Salerno, J.” in the body. “Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.” at the end. Is there a judge for metadata? George D. Salerno is the trial judge (“Supreme Court, Bronx County (George D. Salerno, J.)“). The App Div judges are the ones at the end. I‘ll put the trial judge in metadata. One detail: `midpage-citation` - `791 NYS2d 823`. Okay, let‘s write the HTML. One problem: The Rockhead caption starts on 118 and the body starts on 119. If I extract the caption, there is no text left on 118 for this case. I will put the page marker `n=“119“` at the start of the body. Wait, the prompt says “Always start with immediately after (where X is the first page number)“. If I extract the 118 caption to metadata, the “first page number” of the body is 119. However, often captions are kept in the body if they contain substantive info not in metadata. But the instructions say “Caption separator characters: ) or |... Remove... Case caption blocks (if already fully extracted to Case Information) — do not repeat... in the body“. Rockhead‘s caption is: ELIZABETH ROCKHEAD, as Administratrix of the Estate of MALICIA N. ROCKHEAD, Deceased, Respondent, v NELSON TROCHE, Defendant, and CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. KIRKLAND ROCKHEAD, Respondent, v NELSON TROCHE, Defendant, and CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. I will put this in `midpage-case-name`. The citation `[791 NYS2d 823]` goes in `midpage-citation`. Wait, Rockhead‘s “opinion” is just a memorandum order. “Order, Supreme Court... affirmed... There are issues... JJ.” I‘ll treat the Rockhead opinion as the main one. Wait, looking at the first fragment. It ends with “offense.” If I include the fragment, it‘s confusing. If I follow “Skip partial content... convert only the MAIN opinion“, Rockhead is the choice. One issue: The caption for Rockhead has names and procedural roles. Metadata: `shortName=“Rockhead v. Troche“` `midpage-case-name`: `ELIZABETH ROCKHEAD, as Administratrix of the Estate of MALICIA N. ROCKHEAD, Deceased, Respondent, v NELSON TROCHE, Defendant, and CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. KIRKLAND ROCKHEAD, Respondent, v NELSON TROCHE, Defendant, and CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.` Wait, the `shortName` rule: “omit ‘et al.’ and procedural phrases“. “Elizabeth Rockhead v. Nelson Troche” -> Rockhead v. Troche. Correct. One more thing: the Henderson fragment contains: - People v Henderson (41 NY2d 233 [1976]) - People v Van Norstrand, 85 NY2d 131 [1995] - People v Gonzalez, 221 AD2d 203 [1995] This looks like a complete section of an opinion (the analysis/holding), but it‘s missing the start (caption). I‘ll stick to Rockhead. Wait, should I include the Banca Di Roma caption? No, it‘s incomplete. Final structure:

...

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County...

There are issues of fact...

Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.

Wait, the “Concur...” is at the end of the Rockhead decision. One check: the Rockhead text has an “ionary” break? “probation-ary” on 118/119? No, “probation-” is at the end of a line on 119, then “ary” starts the next. “probationary“. “is-sue” -> “issue“. Wait, “de-fendant” in the Henderson text... I‘m skipping it. In Rockhead: “probation-ary“, “is-sue“. I will rejoin them. Let‘s do it. ```html

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George D. Salerno, J.), entered April 13, 2004, which denied defendant City‘s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of both complaints, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There are issues of fact as to whether the City‘s two probationary deputy sheriffs acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [e]) when they allegedly pursued a stolen van operated by defendant Troche at a high rate of speed through a residential area heavily trafficked by cars and trucks, purportedly chasing the van through a solid red light and causing it to crash into the Rockhead vehicle (Spalla v Village of Brockport, 295 AD2d 900 [2002]; see Saarinen v Kerr, 84 NY2d 494, 501 [1994]). There is also an issue of fact as to whether reckless conduct of the probationary deputy sheriffs was a proximate cause of the accident and the resulting death of Malicia Rockhead and injury to Kirkland Rockhead (Spalla v Village of Brockport, supra; Lopez v Town of Gates, 249 AD2d 934 [1998]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.

``` Wait, I need to check the exact words. “There are issues of fact as to whether the City‘s two probation-” “ary deputy sheriffs acted in reckless disregard...” Rejoined: “probationary deputy sheriffs“. “There is also an is-” “sue of fact...” Rejoined: “issue of fact“. Also, checking the citation: “Spalla v Village of Brockport, supra“. I used `type=“supra“`. “Saarinen v Kerr, 84 NY2d 494, 501 [1994]“. Tagged. “Lopez v Town of Gates, 249 AD2d 934 [1998]“. Tagged. The signature/concurrence line: “Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.” I‘ll put it at the end of the paragraph as it appears in the source. Wait, the citation `[791 NYS2d 823]` is provided in the caption on 118. The Appellate Division court is inferred. In NY reports, NYS2d covers Appellate Division and lower courts. The JJ line (Saxe, J.P., etc.) confirms it‘s the Appellate Division, First Department. Wait, is there any chance Rockhead starts on 118? The caption is on 118. The body starts on 119. I‘ll include the 118 marker at the end of metadata or just before the body if I consider the caption “metadata“. But the rule says: “Always start with immediately after (where X is the first page number)“. The first page number associated with this opinion is 118. I‘ll put `` then since there‘s no body text on 118, I‘ll put ``. Actually, if I extract the caption to metadata, 118 has no body text. But I should probably put 118 to show where the record starts. Actually, I‘ll follow the rule: “Only include page markers where content follows“. If I move the caption to metadata, 118 has no content left. But wait, the Rockhead case text starts with “Order...“. That‘s on page 119. So the first page of body content is 119. However, many formatters want the 118 page if the caption is there. Let‘s see: “Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“. If I move the caption, 118 is empty of body content. So I start with ``. Wait, checking Henderson again. If Henderson is actually the main opinion of the page, but it‘s truncated... Rockhead is clearly a “Memorandum Decision” (typical for NY Appellate Division). I‘ll go with Rockhead. Wait, what if the user wants the fragment of the first case? “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” This specifically tells me to skip the Henderson part. And Banca Di Roma is partial at the end. I should skip it. Final check on tag details: Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [e] In NY Law tags: I use “NY” jurisdiction. `cite` is normalized. `cite=“N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1104(e)“`. Wait, source says “§ 1104 [e]“. I‘ll use `§ 1104(e)`. One more thing: Concurrence line. `Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.` It‘s part of the same paragraph block in the source? No, it‘s a separate line in the OCR but visually it‘s the end of the second paragraph. Actually, looking at the image: “Lopez v Town of Gates, 249 AD2d 934 [1998]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.” It‘s at the end of the paragraph. One detail: `(Spalla v Village of Brockport, supra; Lopez v Town of Gates, 249 AD2d 934 [1998]).` Wait, the OCR has: `Rockhead (Spalla v Village of Brockport, supra; Lopez v Town of Gates, 249 AD2d 934 [1998]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.` Yes, it‘s one paragraph. One more check: `[791 NYS2d 823]` at the end of the caption on 118. In Banca Di Roma, it‘s `[793 NYS2d 341]`. These are the reporter citations for these specific entries. I‘ll proceed with Rockhead. ```html

``` Wait, I need to make sure I didn‘t miss any text. “Rockhead (Spalla...)” -> “Rockhead (Spalla...” Everything seems correct. One small detail: `[791 NYS2d 823]` - citation. `midpage-citation` - I‘ll strip the brackets for the attribute, but the inner text usually matches. Actually, I‘ll put `791 NYS2d 823` in the `cite` attribute if I were tagging it, but in `midpage-citation` element it can have the reporter string. One more thing: the Henderson case on 118 ends with “greater offense.” then a black square. Rockhead starts with a black square. Banca starts with a black square. Final check on Rockhead: “probationary” “issue” Correct. Wait, I should check if there‘s any content after Concur JJ. There is a black bar separator. Then the Banca case. So Rockhead is complete. One nuance: the Rockhead case on 119 starts with a black bar? No, page 119 has a black bar at the very top (maybe the top of the column or page header removed). Then the Rockhead text. Final check: “ELIZABETH ROCKHEAD... Respondent, v NELSON TROCHE, Defendant, and CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.” It‘s two consolidated cases: Elizabeth Rockhead v Troche & NYC, and Kirkland Rockhead v Troche & NYC. Short name `Rockhead v. Troche` is fine. One detail: `midpage-court`. The citation is `NYS2d`. This is the New York Supplement, 2nd series. It covers all NY appellate courts. The AD2d cites within the text are Appellate Division, 2nd series. The judges Saxe, Friedman, etc. are Appellate Division, First Department. I will use `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“`. Wait, the Banca Di Roma case on 119: `Banca Di Roma, Appellant, v Mutual of America Life Insurance Company, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.) [793 NYS2d 341]` Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J., and a jury)... This opinion is incomplete because it ends with “purchased the adjoining“. So Rockhead is the ONLY complete opinion. Wait, the prompt says “Convert the provided legal document“. If I ONLY provide Rockhead, I am following the “Main Opinion / Multi-Opinion” rules. If I provide Henderson, I am breaking the “Skip partial content... at the beginning” rule. If I provide Banca, I am breaking the “Skip partial content... at the end” rule (implicitly, as it‘s not a complete opinion body). I‘ll provide Rockhead. One check: “probation-ary” -> “probationary“. “is-sue” -> “issue“. OCR: `There is also an is- sue of fact`. Correct. One check: `791 NYS2d 823` is the citation for Rockhead. OCR has `[791 NYS2d 823]—` at the very end of 118. I‘ll include it in metadata. Wait, looking at the Henderson fragment again. “defendant would have only formed the intent to use the burglar‘s tools to commit larceny when he came upon the tools after he had illegally entered onto the premises.” This is a very specific legal discussion. But the instruction “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document” is very clear. Okay, Rockhead it is. Wait, the prompt says “Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“. If I extract the Rockhead caption from 118, and I start the body on 119, I‘ve correctly moved it. Is there any Syllabus for Rockhead? No. Is there a date? The Order was entered April 13, 2004. The decision date is not on the page. One more thing: In the body of Rockhead, there‘s a citation: `(Spalla v Village of Brockport, supra; Lopez v Town of Gates, 249 AD2d 934 [1998])`. Wait, there‘s a reference to Saarinen before that. `(Spalla v Village of Brockport, 295 AD2d 900 [2002]; see Saarinen v Kerr, 84 NY2d 494, 501 [1994]).` Yes, I tagged those. One detail: “Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.” This is the list of judges. I‘ll just leave it at the end of the paragraph. Wait, the instructions say “Extract metadata... Omit elements without data“. `midpage-judge` - `George D. Salerno, J.` (Trial judge). `midpage-case-name` - The long name. `midpage-citation` - `791 NYS2d 823`. One more check on Banca: It has “And a Third-Party Action.” Rockhead doesn‘t have that. The Banca judgment is 2003. Rockhead order is 2004. This matches the reporter order (chronological or grouped by department). Ready. One tiny check on Rockhead v. Troche short name: “Elizabeth Rockhead... v Nelson Troche” -> `Rockhead v. Troche`. Wait, there‘s another plaintiff “Kirkland Rockhead“. Bluebook short name for consolidated cases: usually just the first one. `Rockhead v. Troche`. Correct. Wait, `shortName=“Rockhead v. Troche“` `case=“Rockhead v. Troche“` (in tagging) Wait, in tags, I should use the party names from the citation. Spalla v. Village of Brockport -> `case=“Spalla v. Village of Brockport“` Saarinen v. Kerr -> `case=“Saarinen v. Kerr“` Lopez v. Town of Gates -> `case=“Lopez v. Town of Gates“` Wait, Saarinen is `84 NY2d 494`. In NY tagging, `court=“N.Y.“`. Spalla is `295 AD2d 900`. In NY tagging, `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“`. Lopez is `249 AD2d 934`. In NY tagging, `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“`. Looks good. One final check on text: “denied defendant City‘s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of both complaints, unanimously affirmed, without costs.” “There are issues of fact as to whether the City‘s two probationary deputy sheriffs acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [e]) when they allegedly pursued a stolen van operated by defendant Troche at a high rate of speed through a residential area heavily trafficked by cars and trucks, purportedly chasing the van through a solid red light and causing it to crash into the Rockhead vehicle” “There is also an issue of fact as to whether reckless conduct of the probationary deputy sheriffs was a proximate cause of the accident and the resulting death of Malicia Rockhead and injury to Kirkland Rockhead” Everything seems verbatim. Wait, “JJ.” at the end of concurrence. “Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.” This is correct. One small thing: “Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [e]“. Law cite normalization: `N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1104(e)`. Actually, in NY opinions, “Vehicle and Traffic Law” is the specific name of the consolidated law. I‘ll use `cite=“N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1104(e)“`. Wait, the prompt says “If original is ‘error, either’ don‘t make it ‘either error,‘“. I will keep it verbatim. One more thing: the Rockhead caption on 118 has a dash after the citation: `[791 NYS2d 823]—`. I will ignore the dash in metadata. Wait, if I extract the caption, should I include the [791 NYS2d 823] in the body? “Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“. So no. One last check on the fragment Henderson. If the document is just Henderson and Rockhead, is Henderson the main one? No, Henderson is a partial. Rockhead is the main complete one. Wait, what if the user wants ALL text as a single opinion? No, “Multi-Opinion Documents... convert only the MAIN opinion“. “Main” usually refers to the one that is the focus or complete. Rockhead is complete. I‘m confident. Final check on citation tags: Spalla: `case=“Spalla v. Village of Brockport” cite=“295 AD2d 900” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“2002“` Saarinen: `case=“Saarinen v. Kerr” cite=“84 NY2d 494” pinpoint=“501” court=“N.Y.” date=“1994“` Lopez: `case=“Lopez v. Town of Gates” cite=“249 AD2d 934” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“1998“` Wait, I need to make sure I don‘t hallucinate “Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department” if it‘s not on the page. The citation 791 NYS2d 823 is from the 1st Dept. But the page only shows “Appellate Division” indirectly via AD2d cites and the JJ list. I‘ll use `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“`. One detail: `midpage-citation` - `791 NYS2d 823`. I‘ll put the page marker for 119 at the start. I‘ll omit 118 since the body doesn‘t start there (caption moved to metadata). Wait, “Always start with immediately after (where X is the first page number)“. The first page number of the CASE is 118. If I omit 118, I might be violating the “first page number” instruction. I‘ll put `` then the content. Since I‘m moving the caption to metadata, 118 has no body text. Actually, I‘ll put `` then `` right after it? No. I‘ll follow: “Only include page markers where content follows“. The first content follows on 119. So ``. Actually, if I extract the caption, and the caption is on 118, then the “Case” starts on 118. But the instruction “Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body” effectively removes the 118 content. I‘ll start with 119. Wait, if the syllabus/prefatory material is important, but there is none for Rockhead besides the caption... I‘ll just start with 119. Final check: Saxe, J.P. (Justice Presiding). Everything is set.