last case on for argument is thomas versus new york city department of education and even c honour's my name is michael thomas i'm the plaintiff appellant may please the court first i want to acknowledge that my conspiracy claim does not revive those claims for which i previously had a complete cause of action therefore my  i do have a timely cause of action for those acts those wrongful acts of defendants that furthered or concealed the conspiracy the cause of action for those acts accrued in july two thousand and fifteen when i first became aware of them i think certainly my cause of action against casa crude in july two thousand and fifteen i could not bring an action under section one nine hundred eighty three against cos a private actor unless i could somehow demonstrate that he collaborated with the state actor in order to establish that he conspired with either him enters a choir and i had to provide some factual basis supporting a meeting of the minds i only knew in two thousand and eight after i received a request for the psych exam that p t a executive board had written a letter complaining about my title one activities there was and nothing in the request for the psych exam world know your own letter from the board a letter from the board yes your honor hi i had tried for about six years to try to obtain a copy of that letter but i was unable to until july two thousand and fifteen so in two thousand and eight the only scores improperly on the regents exams but again nothing in that investigative report suggested that costs in writing the p t a letter had conspired with him and his or quine in fact i was told by s g i in two thousand and eleven that there was  that's just incorrect in march two thousand and eight i was aware only was we respect to how it was cited in the psych exam the request for the psych exam all it said about the letter is that the p t a executive board had written a letter and in that letter they had complained falsely falsely told him that i lowered the scores on the regents what mr cos said in two o s i during the investigation was that he based his allegations on my efforts to regain lost title one funding so the only time i really had a complete knowledge of what had occurred was when i received the p t a letter and also cost a sworn statement in july two thousand and fifteen there have been educations not in your favor on your claims for leading to the impact of the letter in these other actions that's what you were referring to as claims that would not be revived by the conspiracy claim grant yes  would not say that i actually had any proceedings prior in court relating to my actual claims i what i had challenge in court was sci's determination but that was basically asking the court to determine that sci's determination was retaliation claims just merely agreed with sci that i had not followed the reporting criteria as far as as outlined in the whistleblower law  retaliation for his speech about title one funding throughout the prior school years as we argued in our brief on the basis of the proceedings below in the representations that mr thomas made in his complaint about his claims those claims are time barred and they should not proceed any further with respect to any claims against connor conrad arising from their investigation of his applications for whistleblower protection mr thomas previously filed in one thousand nine hundred three lawsuit in mr thomas is precluded from now filing any further claims against kannan in conroe arising out of that same transaction their resolution of those applications for whistleblower protection in so far as mr thomas made the same allegation in that earlier complaint that sci has an alleged customer policy of denying whistleblower protection applications that was his opportunity to pursue that claim in that case was resolved on the merits with  final judgment and furthermore the middel claim also would be barred by the three year statute of limitations that second application for whistleblower protection was resolved in november of two thousand and eleven four years before he filed this lawsuit and that's why the three year statute of limitations bars it burglar in his own case today as a nice proof some of you may be wondering why mr cossey even needs his own lawyer in this case and i just want to make sure there's no misunderstanding the reason is just a cost has the distinct distinction of being the only person in this case who was never paid for anything he did with respect to this case mr kos was a volunteer who had a child at the school and so he volunteered to be the p t a president try to help the school that we all hope parents will do he didn't get paid for that he was a strictly volunteer position and when this lawsuit came up and mr cossey went to the city and said will the law department represent me since i was working for the p t a at the time a lot of harm and said no because you're not an employee of the city you're simply not eligible so the only reason that he's that i'm here is because mr kos as a thank you for his volunteer service now has to pay me to come here and answer these charges from nine years ago now in terms of the the actual merits of the appeal i think mr thomas has admitted everything this court needs to know he admits that he knew back in two that my client and the principal were good friends he actually says it was a terrible mistake when he reached out to mr cos because they were good friends they knew that well in advance he knew that mr krause had written with the board the a board had written a letter to that principal his good friend he knew that that letter resulted after mr thomas on his own went and found mr kos and affirmatively asked mr cost stop that there had been a conspiracy his excuse for not filing suit at that point in time is well i didn't think i'd be able to prove it at trial but he didn't he didn't bring a complaint say we need i need three discovery or anything like that he just said i didn't have enough at the time now of course that begs the question if we look at the letter there's nothing in the letter that in any way suggests any kind of conspiracy to the contrary the letter says dear principal if there's anything we don't understand factually that's correct if we're off base if we misunderstand something please correct us ok so it's not a conspiracy where mr cossey is affirmatively trying to somehow tell a lie he's saying this is what we've learned as the p t a board this is what we've heard this is what we believe is true but you folks at the school know a lot more than we if there's something wrong here please tell us now mr thomas and his reply brief sort of get a different tone though in the  a member that i remember that yes or the tone of it's a little bit different it's more q satori as well the definitely acute i q zation is going on but that's the point is the p t a was accusing mr thomas of having done things that's not anything like the principal saying oh p t a please create a false letter masquerading as a complaint so that i can then do something to this teacher it's quite the opposite it's the p t a saying hey mr thomas has voluntarily sent us hundreds pages of documents that we did not ask for and did not asked to review and we have reviewed them and this is what we found as a result could you do something about this and that's what led to the letter but the letter doesn't say anything in it about a meeting of the minds or agreeing to do something and mr thomas has also acknowledged that he he has not alleged that mr kos was quote unquote in on it you know mr thomas has always said that the principal and the vice a principal route to get him they were making up allegations about and that's been the gist of what he's been saying but he had alleges that the principal told those allegations to the p t a to mr cox not that he told the a that the allegations were false so if anything mr cos was simply misled if there was a false statement somewhere that somehow impacted mr thomas mr cos was misled by the school authorities as much as anyone and there's just no reason of there's no there's no allegation in the complaint and there's no fact in the record that would support any finding that mr kos in any way conspired with anyone at the school much less that there was any kind of meeting of the minds there's only these written documents which say this is what we the p t a board have heard we it's appears to be true but if it's not true please tell us what's wrong with this and then please take whatever action is appropriate consistent with the chancellor's regulations and the other regulations so it's it's just what we would all expect our p t a presidents our friends who are volunteer parents trying to do right back it's they're just doing what you would want them to do and i would just ask this court please don't do anything that's going to make it harder to get p t a representatives to serve in these positions in the absence of evidence that anything was done wrong i see and i'm out of time i should stop thank you very much with the workings of the school system mr costin self had been a math teacher for approximately seven or eight years and by his own admission in his statements to sci stated that he had graded regents exams for many many years he is well aware of the procedures regarding regents exams he knew full well that it was a principal responsibility to protect the integrity of the exam he should have known two months after the exams were given when the principal requested mr jimenez i'm sorry mr cost to write the letter he should have known that it was a principals responsible billett he if anything had happened during the graded the regents to bring that to the attention of the department of education and it was not the parent teachers associations president responsibility to write a letter at the principal's request saying that these events had occurred so do i misunderstand that those documents that the p t a i was looking at had had been sent by you to them they were sent to me on february twenty seventh in response to a communication i have with mr cos regarding a different matter it was basically the documentation i sent was just regarding my activities regarding title one where i was trying to show that i was trying to make our targeted assistance program more effective it had nothing to do with the grading the regents or anything like that but i had some merely submitted some documentation because there had been some friction between the p t a and the teachers and i was just trying to show that basically we all were in agreement we just was miscommunication ok my cause of action essentially is fourth the he was told by mr jimenez and mr kwan that they allege that i had false these scored the region's exams which is certainly what he would have done not doing so certainly to me shows consciousness of guilt regarding my claims against i the previous lawsuit i followed against s g i was essentially alleging that they had conducted an inadequate investigation when i receive the materials in july two thousand and fifteen it became clear that they had not perform inadequate investigation their vast vesta geisha was actually very thorough except that they concealed the results right so there's two totally different claims previously the lawsuit said that it was a totally inadequate investigation now i'm saying that was a good investigation they concealed their findings which deprived me from my cause of action this is timely because my previous lawsuit ended i believe on july tenth two thousand and fifteen i did not receive materials here until july seventeenth two thousand