proximate cause ation they allege that the cuts in the victims are caused by mr not mr marrs sudden motion a chain of events that led to the victims sixty hours after the original crime and in that case beyond a reasonable attorney would bird shifted did it not there was no evidence introduced it off on the part of the defense of any gross negligence at the trial and the worst you have had to introduce would be defensive had to introduce procedure that the doctors on their own decided to perform which is on a related to the reason for the initial hospitalization but since stewart the new york court of appeals distinguish  griffen a case much more like our case here your case here with stabbing victim died from infection in applying the traditional causation rule that were a person inflicts upon another wounded is dangerous he's responsible and elevation feeding the difference between what was needed here which is antibiotics and a surgical removal of the effected area and if you were if you are you were corrected any time that there was some some medical sitting in the hospital nine hours with these these types of symptoms is in fact a superseding cause because it's so beyond what more narrow person would expect the standard of care to be now defendant of the cuts and they cleaned up i believe they gave him antibiotics at that point and but not the second hospital he didn't tell them that so they put on ice and to this swelling they gave him some pain indictment which omitted essential elements of the charges of course nothing about jointure speedy trial obviously and then the same in the same paragraph he says but for counsel's ineffective assistance of counsels no trier of fact could have found petitioner guilty beyond any reasonable doubt a first degree murder we're still trying to about the trial level here so i think certainly if nothing else from and that is a requirement in order to commence the action he did not break it the purpose of having this notarized verification is to hold people to a standard of truth and it makes them subject to legal not making sure it was verified however the people still assert that because here you're looking at well we did facts in the defendant's petition without having a notarized verification just to establish the veracity of those facts that they cannot they cannot be taken as true and that bringing a complaint about someone this incomplete it could not proceed so it would not have until it is complete and here part of the inherent element in bringing  do more but the defendant i believe the evidence with the defendant said he was scared and wanted to leave so he left comes to the house second hospital because then they were immediately concerned with his diabetic conditions that were of concern and while i'm not sure where in the record medical examiner commented that victim so as a mitigating the defendant's criminal liability so here that if the doctors are shooting for it with the final is the most i don't remember the language they used but the initially presented his initial complaint was arm pain and that was a peach of the record and then they noticed all of these other problems with him and started treatment they gave him the x rays they said at that point i believe they said that there were there were no surface injuries needing treatment at that point they x rayed him they were they were trying to do as much as they could with the information that they had available to them the victim however it was a watershed and that left guess medical advice we can only speculate that they would have found it had he stayed but that's completely speculative your honor but there's nothing in the record to suggest that what they were dealing w layman as an average reasonable juror knowing anything about it and even then even then it's a big and immediate treatment by doctors would be something you could record as on the surface of the defendant's body probably not however i'm not a medical expert i can't testify to that but this i have to know what you hear out of that this would be something that average reasonable person would and advocate for the defendant to determine that that's actually what he was alleging in his post conviction but to shut up and to give defense counsel brought up this was happily litigated below the defendant i believe was in attendance when all of this was litigate ed so even if he had used turns he would have been very aware of what this claim was still the facts that he has no factual detail regarding a compulsory joiner a speedy trial claim the trial judge did not improperly rule that the defendant failed to substantiate his claim or pro details of a constitutional violation there was just nothing there by which the judge the post conviction judge to determine that was the issue so that is are there any other question