POINT XI
                              --------

        FILING OF A LEGAL AND PROPER MOTION MUST BE NOTICED UPON THE
        ADVERSE PARTY WITH THE PROPER RETURN DATE AND SUPPORTED BY AN
        AFFIDAVIT SWEARING TO THE FACTS EITHER BY A PARTY TO THE ACTION
        OR AN ATTORNEY ASSERTING FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE, AND NOT BY A MERE
        LEGAL ASSISTANT.

            Defendants-Appellants need not remind the Court about the
        legal requirements for filing a motion, or that a motion
        requires the payment of the filing fee (see POINT ???) in this
        brief) and that a motion must be accompanied by an affidavit
        sworn to by someone who has firsthand knowledge of the facts as
        per the Uniform Rules Section 202.8 for Motion Procedure which
        states in part:

            "All motions shall be returnable before the assigned
            judge, and all papers shall be filed with the court on or
            before the return date. ... The moving party shall serve
            copies of all affidavits and briefs upon all other
            parties at the time of service of the notice of motion."
            "Affidavits shall be for a statement of the relevant
            facts..."

            As Defendants-Appellants point out in this Brief for POINT
        ???, that the letter request from Sheri Beals (A - 281) was a
        true motion, that was never noticed CPLR 2221, no filing fee
        paid CPLR 8020(a), and that no motion was filed for the change
        to the Original Decision and Order.  The Law Dictionary by
        Steven H. Gillis defines an Affidavit as "A written sttement
        made or taken under oath before an officer of the court or a
        notary public... Affiant the person who makes and subscribes to
        a statement made under oath." The Beals "motion" to the Lower
        Court did not have any supporting affidavit, and contained
        merely her "opinion" of an error.  Nor did she assert that she
        had any first hand knowledge of any of the facts surrounding her
        motion.

            Siegal writes under Section 247 Making the Motion; Notice
        Requirements "CPLR 2214(b) requires that the other party be
        given at least eight days notice of the motion..." such notice
        was never given.

            Defendants-Appellants question the legality of a mere legal
        assistant to submit on behalf of any party a motion to the
        Supreme Court, or to any other Court, as Defendants-Appellants
        asserted to the Lower Court that the use of
        Plaintiff-Respondent's legal assistant was a method to shield
        their licensed attorneys from sanctions for submitting a known
        illegal motion to the Court (A - ???).

            Defendants-Appellants point out that Plaintiff-Respondent
        fully realized that the Amended Decision and Order was the
        result of their motion since they served their Notice of Entry
        (A - 23) based upon a motion.  As written by Siegel Section 250,
        Deciding the Motion; the Order which states:

            "A motion culminates in an order, which must be reduced
            to a writing, and the written order must conform strictly
            to the decision"  and that "It is a general principle, in
            fact, that service of the order on the adverse party is
            necessary to give it validity."

            This Court should hold that the Beals letter (A 281) was an
        improper and illegal motion and reverse the Amended Decision and
        Order (A - 19) as well as to reverse the Judgement For
        Foreclosure and Sale (A - 7) that was a direct result of the
        motion.