dirty-deeds - critical failure?

ABOUT

SWAG

JafoMaru

HARUCHAI

ALL I
CAN STANDS

THE
GROWLER

8 EASY
PIECES

Due Process
$$

Procedural Due Process in the Boro of Brooklyn

Brooklyn Lyceum:as a judicial jurisdictional pincushion

The LOWER COURT STORY (Judge Donald Scott Kurtz)

Lender (Plaintiff) initiated a foreclosure against Lyceum.
Based on the papers submitted by the Plaintiff, the first action in the case was fatally and facially tardy and jurisdictionally ineffective.
The judge, Donald Scott Kurtz, did, or failed to do the following:
  --Failed to dismiss the case as abandoned as was required.
  --Granted relief not requested in the moving papers.
  --Granted relief not listed under the statute noticed.
  --Premised decision on two non-existent documents.
Defendant Richmond moved to dismiss the case as abandoned.
  --Counsel for defendant admitted to the court on October 24, 2012, that Plaintiff had moved 6 months later than the abandonment statute allowed.
  --After this admission, the Court gave Plaintiff extra time to come up with another answer.
  --Plaintiff Counsel produced a sworn statement from former Plaintiff counsel admitting Plaintiff had regular and repeated interaction with counsel for Richmond and Lyceum PRIOR to October 26, 2009 motion.
  --Plaintiff Counsel produced a sworn statement that Plaintiff counsel had admitted, in a hearing on October 24, 2012, that the initial motion was 6 months late.
  --The Decision referenced documents that did not exist at the time of the October 26, 2009 Notice of Motion.
  --The Decision does not address Plaintiff admission to moving 6 months after statutory abandonment.
The judge then followed it up by granting a motion on no notice.
Defendant Richmond appealed the refusal to dismiss the case as abandoned (APPEAL #1).
The Lyceum moved to vacate the Order of Reference never served on the attorney for Richmond and the Lyceum, and the Judgment of Foreclosure with the facially statutorily insufficient notice, either of which would unwind the sale of the Brooklyn Lyceum.
The Plaintiff, in opposition papers, admitted ...:
  --Plaintiff failed to serve the October 26, 2009 Notice of Motion on the sworn to counsel for Richmond / Lyceum, David Blum, Esq.
  --Plaintiff's March 17, 2011 Notice of Motion instructed those noticed to apear on April 18, 2001.
  --Plantiff's ?? Notice of Entry of the Judgment of Foreclosure failed to accurately describe the Decision attached to the Notice of Entry.
The court is required to address jursdictional arguments before it takes any action after they are raised.
Judge Kurtz, rather than addressing the jurisdictional challenges, as required, refused to provide a required court reporter at the hearing on the motion and failed to acknowledge the hearing occurred (and that Richmond raised all three jurisdictional arguments orally) in a decision that said:
"If I were to address the motion, I would deny it"

The APPELLATE COURT STORY (Judge Reinaldo Rivera)

The Lyceum appealed the decision on whether the first action in the case was statutorily abandoned.
Once the appeal was fully briefed, it took 2.5 years to get calendered for oral argument.
At oral argumment on appeal, the Lyceum raised three jurisdictional challenges that, being jurisdictional, can be raised as late as oral argument on appeal:
  --The Lower court had granted a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale on no notice.
  --The required notice of entry of the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale was invalid as it did not truly descibe the document entered.
  --The Plaintiff, having now sworn that the Lyceum had actually appeared, contrary to prior sworn statement, failed to serve the attorney for the Lyceum with whom they had repeated communicatuion, including extensions of time to answer.

The Appellate Court ignored the jurisdictional arguments, and, in order to avoid ruling a case abandoned based on the record presented to the lower court:
  --Made up a fact (finding October 19 comes after October 26)
  --Found that the Plaintiff had timely moved in the first motion in the case.
    ---- an impossible finding from the record in the lower court at the time of the motion in question,
  ---- a finding that could only be possible if the court altered the lower docket to incorporate proof of Lyceum appearance, and appearance that triggered the three jurisdictional issues raised at oral argument.
The Appellate Court denied a motion to reconsider whether 19 > 26 or whether the Appellate court went outside the record and altered the docket.
The Appellate Court denied a motion to for leave to appeal whether 19 > 26 or whether the Appellate court went outside the record and altered the docket.

The COURT OF APPEALS STORY

The COURT OF APPEALS:
  --dismissed stating the court did not have jurisdiction over 19 > 26
  --(but did not deny)
  --a motion to for leave to appeal
  --whether 19 > 26 or
  --whether the Appellate court went outside the record and altered the docket.

NEXT LYCEUM STEPS

We are sure that making mathmatically impossible findings is directly akin to jurisdictional issues
(the court has no authority to get 5th grade math wrong).
In the event that Court of Appeals fails to do its job, we will be back with writs to compel the courts to address the jurisdictional arguments and 5th grader math failure.

PASS JUDGMENT ON JUDGES WHO:

Ignore Jurisdictional challenges,

Grant motions on no notice,

Grant relief not requested,

Find Oct. 17 is AFTER Oct. 26 &

Retroactively alter docket for lender.

refuse to provide court reporter

commit perjury to appellate division