POINT IX
                              ---------

        A PRIOR WRITTEN DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT THAT WAS ENTERED
        BY A NOTICE OF ENTRY AND NOT APPEALED FROM OR MOTIONED VIA CPLR
        2221 WITHIN 30 DAYS, BECOMES THE LAW OF THE CASE, BINDING THE
        PARTIES TO IT.

            A motion to reargue must be made within the 30 day time to
        take an appeal of the filing of the notice of entry.  Plaintiff-
        Respondent filed their Notice of Entry on 06-12-07 (A - 30).
        For whatever reasons both parties had at that time, neither
        filed for a notice of appeal nor for a CPLR 2221 for leave to
        reargue.  The Law and Statute is quite clear:

            "On July 20, 1999, an amendment to CPLR 2221 took effect,
            codifying practice on motions to reargue and renew.  The
            amendment is mainly that -- just a codification of
            existing practice -- leaving largely intact the treatment
            of this subject in Section 254 of the main volume, but
            there are two things that should be noted which can
            prove pitfalls for the practioner.  These are highlighted
            in an extensive lead not on the amendment in SPR Issue 86.
            One has to do with the time for making a motion to reargue."

            "The general rule is, and remains, that a motion to reargue
            must be made within the time for appealing the order.
            The rule came from caselaw.  ... Paragraph 3 of the new
            subdivision (d) of CPLR 2221 provides explicitly that
            the motion to reargue shall be made within thirty days
            after service of a copy of the order determining the
            prior motion and written notice of its entry."

            Plaintiff-Respondent can not claim a "de minimis Court
        scrivener's error" to shield their failure to file a proper
        motion to the Lower Court.  The Lower Court should have ignored
        or rejected the faxed motion as a matter of law, even without
        requiring written opposition from Defendants-Appellants.

            "A motion to reargue should be made within the time in
            which an appeal from the original order could have been
            taken... But any untoward delay in making the motion
            will necessarily affect the court's discretion when its
            merits are examined.  Gross laches wopuld be grounds to
            deny it without even reaching the merits."
            (Siegal Section 254)

            Defendants-Appellants were thus denied due process in which
        to challenge the unexcused or un-pleaded and illegal motion to
        "reargue" the major changes to the Original Decision and Order
        from back in April 27, 2007 (A - 25), which
        Defendants-Appellants stated in the Letter to Recuse "This is
        clearly the path we would take, and demonstrates that we were
        deprived of the above procedures in law.  We point out that
        laches was cited against us by Plaintiff's Attorney at their
        paragraph 18 ''... Defendant's claim of predatory lending is no
        longer a valid claim as laches has attached.''"

            This Court should declare the Amended Decision and Order was
        the creation of and grounded in an illegal motion to the Lower
        Court and reverse it and declare it null and void.