POINT X
                               -------

        CPLR (8020)(a) REQUIRES THAT ANY MOTION MUST HAVE A FILING FEE -
        AND THEREFORE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT'S MOTION WAS
        ILLEGAL.

            Defendants-Appellants Affidavit in Opposition to
        Plaintiff-Respondent's motion for the Judgement for Foreclosure
        and Sale (A - 324) showed as an exhibit a page printout of the
        County Clerk's Minutes (A - 356) that shows an "NTC ENTRY for
        6/25/2007", the "AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER for 8/28/2007", a
        "LETTER DATED 8/28/2007" and another "LETTER DATED 9/10/2007".
        Nowhere is there any indication of a CPLR 2221 motion having
        been filed for the presentation of the Amended Decision and
        Order, or that the required CPLR 8020(a) fee had been paid for
        the motion.  This is in violation of black letter statute and
        the rules of the court.

            Also attached as an exhibit in Defendants-Appellants
        Affidavit in Opposition was a 13 page letter to Lower Court
        Judge O'Rourke dated October 22, 2007 (A- 366), asking him to
        recuse himself, sua sponte, noting the abuses of due process and
        Plaintiff-Respondent's violation of the rules of the court,
        albeit with the apparent blessings of the Court.  That letter
        put both the Lower Court and Plaintiff-Respondent on notice
        before the October 31, 2007, Motion for the final Judgement for
        Foreclosure and Sale, that the Amended Decision and Order was in
        violation of the CPLR.  Defendants-Appellants again submitted as
        Exhibit 6 on page 6/13 (A - 371) the letter in their Affidavit
        in Opposition (A - 338 -> 386) reiterating that the underlying
        Order was in complete violation of the Court Rules.
        Defendants-Appellants cited Motion Practice Section 253 - Motion
        Affecting Prior Order which states:

            "The fact that a motion may affect or even be directly
            addressed to a prior order does not relieve it of the
            requirement that a fee be paid for the motion when the
            papers are filed with the county clerk.  (The fee is
            required in supreme and county court but not in the lower
            courts.)  The fee requirement is a new one, imposed for
            the first time in an amendment of CPLR 8020(a) that took
            effect July 14, 2003.  The fee subject is addressed in
            general in Section 243 in this supplement, above."

            Again, the Lower Court ignored black letter law in order to
        accord Plaintiff-Respondent every possible advantage, at a cost
        of due process to Defendants-Appellants, and this Court should
        declare the Beals faxed letter a motion which was not properly
        submitted to the Clerk or the Court, and order that the Amended
        Decision and Order be voided and vacated.