ARGUMENTS
                                    ---------                          page #

        POINT I
        -------
        THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INITIATED ON A MORTGAGE THAT WAS
        PAID AND SATISFIED.............................................14


        POINT II
        --------
        FAILURE TO FILE SATISFACTION OF PAID MORTGAGE WITHIN 30 DAYS IS
        A VIOLATION OF RPAPL 1921 AND N.Y. Jur.2d Mortgages Section 375
        ...............................................................16


        POINT III
        ---------
        MUST A MORTGAGE SATISFACTION BE FILED IN THE COUNTY CLERK'S
        OFFICE ?
        NO: The filing of a Mortgage is for the protection of the lender
        and is not specifically required...............................18


        POINT IV
        ---------
        CAN A LIS PENDENS BE FILED ON A MORTGAGE PAID AND SATISFIED?

        NO: Especially where foreclosure is initiated by a plaintiff who
        has firsthand knowledge of that satisfaction, whether filed or
        not, and does not have actual possession of the original
        mortgage and note..............................................19


        POINT V
        --------
        CAN PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT FILE A SUIT WHEN IT DID NOT OWN OR HAVE
        ACTUAL POSSESSION OF ORIGINAL NOTE AND MORTGAGE WHEN IT FILED
        THE FORECLOSURE ACTION? NO:....................................20

        The actual holder of the originial note is the sole owner of
        instrument and may initiate a seperate action upon it placing
        mortgagee and singer in double jeopardy........................


        POINT VI
        --------
        CAN A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ISSUE ORDERS AND JUDGEMENTS WHEN
        PLAINTIFF NEVER HAD LEGAL JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS?

        NO: As clearly demonstrated by Federal Judge Boyko's recent
        decision that dismissed multiple actions where plaintiffs could
        not prove actual ownership of original notes and mortgages when
        they filed for foreclosure.....................................21


                          continued next page



                                  - 12 -
&l0H



        POINT VII
        ---------
        CAN A LETTER WRITTEN TO THE COURT REQUESTING IT TO CHANGE AND
        DISTURB MAJOR HOLDINGS AND FINDINGS OF FACTS OF A PRIOR DECISION
        AND ORDER RISE TO THE LEVEL OF IT BEING A MOTION ?  Yes........23


        POINT VIII
        ----------
        A "de mimimus Court scriverner's error" CANNOT RISE TO THE
        LEVEL THAT JUSTIFIES JUDICIAL INTERVENTION VIA MOTION..........25


        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..................................................27


        POINT X
        -------
        CPLR (8020)(a) REQUIRES THAT ANY MOTION MUST HAVE A FILING FEE -
        AND THEREFORE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT'S MOTION WAS ILLEGAL........28


        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................................................30


        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.......................................................31


        POINT XIII
        ---------
        THE LOWER COURT VIOLATED THE DOCTRINE OF STARRE DECISIS........33


        POINT XIV
        ----------
        THE CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE WAS THE ONLY SURVIVING AND SUPERCEDED
        MORTGAGE AND PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT WITHELD THAT FACT FROM THE
        LOWER COURT....................................................35




                                  - 13 -
&l0H