December 27, 2007
    via overnight U.S. Mail


    SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

                     Appellate Division Docket No:      07-09263
                       Please include with Order to Show Cause
                       returnable 12-28-07

    Scott E. Webster
    Defendant-Appellant pro se
    18 Fair Street
    Cold Spring, New York 10516
    204 Charlotte Drive
    Dugspur, VA 24325
    (276) 728-5006 Virginia
    (845) 265-3413 New York

    Jean Allen Webster
    Defendant-Appellant pro se
    204 Charlotte Drive
    Dugspur, VA 24325
    (276) 728-5006


    James Pelzer
    Chief Clerk
    Appellate Division
    45 Monroe Place
    Brooklyn, NY 11202

    Dear Mr. Pelzer, or to whom it may concern:

        We, the Defendant-Appellants wish to bring to the attention of
    this Appellate Court a matter we believe is most serious, regarding
    the position and several of the exhibits submitted by Respondent's
    law firm, Steven J. Baum, PC.

    First, yesterday, December 26, 2007 we mailed overnight to this
    Court our Reply Affidavit in the above captioned matter, and
    believe we failed to attach the noted, FYI, Notice of Appeal which
    is being sent to the Lower Court today or tomorrow.


        WE QUESTION THE DATES AND TIMING OF RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS OF
                NOTICE OF ENTRY AND AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

        Second, in our attempt to get our Reply Affirmation in the
    overnight mail to the Court so it would be there Friday morning, we
    later realized that there was a serious problem with the dates with
    Respondent's Notice of Entry (attached hereto as Exhibit "1"),
    Affidavit Service (hereto as Exhibit "2"), and true service upon
    Appellants (hereto as Exhibit "3") that were attached as Respondent's
    exhibit "B" with their Affidavit.

        Respondents major position, as stated in their Affidavit in
    Opposition page 2 paragraph 7 that Appellants appeal "...terminates
    with the entry of a judgement in the action, which in turn requires
    the dismissal of the appeal from the summary judgement."




        IF the entry of a judgement, as they stated, is accomplished by
    the filing of a notice of entry, and that becomes the determining
    factor in the Respondent's demand "Therefore, the appeal should be
    dismissed by the Court and any request for a stay or the
    foreclosure action denied in its entirety." then we wish to file a
    formal complaint and challenge to those documents as an attempt to
    undermine Appellants instant Appeal and Order to Show Cause.

        Respondents Affidavit paragraph 5 states for the Judgement of
    Foreclosure and Sale "A copy of said Judgement, along with Notice
    of its Entry, is attached hereto, collectively as Exhibit "B"."

        That Notice of Entry is dated December 14, 2007, yet the
    metered postmark is dated December 17, 2007, the same date as
    Appellants Order to Show Cause motion was filed in this Court.

        A check this morning, Thursday 12/27/07, at the Putnam County
    Clerk's Office, with Rochelle, to see if they had received
    Respondent's Notice of Entry, that they had not received anything
    after the December 4th Judgement of Foreclosure and Sale.  They
    even checked the incoming papers to see if it had been a matter of
    not being filed yet.  Respondents have almost always filed the
    original with the Clerk as have your Appellants.

        Also this morning, Appellant Scott Webster checked with our
    next door neighbor who also confirmed that the envelope that was
    sent to the New York address was also metered for December 17,
    2007, as well.

        Appellants call attention to Respondents Affidavit of Service
    by Mail (Exhibit "2") by Rachel S. Czora who states the following:

            "That the deponent is an employee fo Pillar
            Processing, LLC, a service provider for Steven J.
            Baum, P.C., attorney for the Plaintiff in the above
            entitled action ... that your Deponent is not a party
            to this action and is over the age of 18 years."

        Attached as Exhibit "5" hereto is a text printout from the
    website for the NYS Sectrary of State for Pillar Processing that
    clearly shows the exact same address, and suite as for Steven J.
    Baum, Respondant's attorney.  Also Exhibit "4" is a copy of the UPS
    label which also shows Pillar's address as the same as Respondent's
    attorney, at 220 Northpointe Parkway.

        There is no logical reason that an entity located in the same
    premisis that it would take three days to mail this now critical
    document to Appellants to establish the now critical date.


        NOTICE OF ENTRY WAS NOT FILED UNTIL AT LEAST 12-17-2007

        Respondents have a vested interest in destroying Appellants
    Instant Appeal, and the play on dates is most worrysome to your
    Appellants.  It is not reasonable for such an important document to
    Respondents, when having been put on notice that Appellants would be
    seeking a stay and TRO on Monday, December 17, 2007 at 2:00pm to
    allow their Notice of Entry to sit around from Friday until Monday,
    the 17th when they got around to mailing it.  And without sending a
    copy to the County Clerk for filing.




        Appellants are not comfortable that the Affidavit of Service
    for the Notice of Entry was not made by an arm's length person,
    or an officer of the Court.  An employee is always under pressure
    to please, or follow instructions.  Appellants can also furnish
    this Honorable Court with copies from the envelopes from the
    Baum law firm which did not require Pillar, to mail for them.

        Respondents were also alerted of Appellants intentions for the
    Order to Show Cause when at around 4:30pm two faxes and an email
    were sent to them to satisfy the Court's requirement that 24 hour
    notice be given to the other party.  Copies of these notices were
    filed with this Court on December 17, 2007, and are part of the
    record.

        Lastly, Respondents appear to be delibertly complicate
    Appellants timely appeal, by forcing the appeal of their
    Judgement for Foreclosure and Sale as Respondents motion for
    same included what the attached Exhibit "6" shows, is an
    almost two inch thick, un tabulated "wad" of paper held together
    with rubber bands, an obvious attempt to drive up the cost and
    add to the confustion of Appellants having to produce over a
    dozen copies in the perfection of that subsequent appeal.

        Appellants request this Court to carefully look into the
    dates of Respondents Exhibits and conclude that Appellants
    Appeal is timely, and should not be dismissed as per CPLR 5501.

        Thank you for your time and attention.

                                              Sincerely,

                                              ________________________________
                                              Scott E. Webster

                                              ______________________
                                              Jean Allen Webster


    TO: Steven J. Baum
    220 Northpointe Pkwy, Ste. G
    Amherst, NY 14228
    (716) 204-2400