POINT XII
                                 ---------

        NEITHER THE LOWER COURT NOR ANY PARTY TO AN ACTION CAN IGNORE
        AND BYPASS THE RULES OF THE COURT'S REQUIREMENT THAT A CPLR 2221
        MOTION IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO REARGUE AND DISTURB A PRIOR
        DECISION AND ORDER OF A PRIOR MOTION WHICH HAS BECOME THE LAW OF
        THE CASE.

            Both Plaintiff-Respondent and the Lower Court completely
        ignored the law of the case doctrine which was binding at this
        time as the Lower Court granted the Judgement For Foreclosure
        and Sale that was based solely upon the contested and illegal
        Amended Decision and Order (A - 19).

            POINTS VII and VIII in this Brief have shown that the faxed
        letter to the Lower Court by Plaintiff-Respondent was by all
        means a true motion requesting relief from the holdings in
        Original Decision and Order of April 27, 2007, (A - 25) by the
        granting of the Amended Decision and Order (A - 19).

            Defendants-Appellants cited for the Lower Court in their
        Memorandum of Law on Point II (A - 396) and in their Affidavit
        in Opposition (A - 382) the statute cite from 28 NY Jur Courts
        and Judges Section 236 Generally the following:

            "As a matter of policy, an attempt to avoid the binding
            effect of a prior ruling should be accomplished by
            reversal of such ruling upon an appeal, and not by a
            coordinate tribunal's failure to follow it.  The doctrine
            of the law of the case articulates the sound policy that
            once an issue is judicially determined, that should be
            the end of the matter as far as judges and courts of
            coordinate jurisdiction are concerned.  When a court makes
            determination in a case, that determination, if not
            appealed from, becomes the ''law of the case'' and
            controls when the question which led to it is again
            presented in that same case.  The decided issue becomes
            binding not only on the parties, but on all other judges
            of coordinate jurisdiction.  Thus a court of coordinate
            jurisdiction ordinarily should not disregard an earlier
            decision on the same question in the same case."

            "The law of the case doctrine applies to motions, so that
            in the absence of a statutory exception and in order to
            prevent vexatious and repeated applications on the same
            point, a motion once fully heard and decided cannot be
            revived again ... The doctrine of the law of the case
            applies to various stages of the same litigation, ..."

            Plaintiff-Respondent and the Lower Court were fully aware
        that the law of the case doctrine had been violated, and that
        this Appellate Court in order to uphold the doctrine should at
        the very least void and vacate the Amended Decision and
        Order (A - 19) as well as the reversal of the Judgement (A - 7)
        being appealed herein.

            Defendants-Appellants cited from 28 NY Jur 2d Courts and
        Judges Section 245 Improper failure to follow doctrine that
        states:

            "When there is an appeal from an order which is found to
            have been made in violation of the law of the case
            doctrine, the appellate court may properly reverse it
            for that reason alone, without regard to the merits, or
            it may disagree with the substance of the subsequent
            order and yet affirm it on appeal on the grounds that it
            was made on the constraint of the law of the case doctrine."

            Therefore as stated above, this Court should reverse the
        Amended Decision and Order (A - 19), and at the very least allow
        the Original Decision and Order of April 27, 2007 (A - 25) be
        allowed to stand as the law of the case.