the next case on the calendar is kareena v new york state unified court system corrado i am the appellant i am the plaintiff in least in this case i am here to request that this court reinstate my case in its entirety and to argue that the lower court abused its discretion and smith saying my case with prejudice at the stage where the and during the posture of the case when it was  d i would argue and submit to this court that the lower court not only abused her discretion but there was a gross abuse of discretion the hostility the yes ms crowder could you tell me with respect to your april fourth two thousand and sixteen letter how do you suggest that we interpret that letter what were you requesting at that stage i was asking the court for assistance i had no attorney i had no file i was on their extreme duress with the attorney general's office right but what the letter says is this case is had dire consequences and effects on my daughter and i cannot continue to allow this situation to further adversely affect her life unfortunately then after many years of living this perpetual nightmare i wish to discontinue this litigation now how are you suggesting the district court should have read that request as a motion to dismiss without prejudice as a motion to dismiss with prejudice as not a motion to dismiss at all what what what was that letter and how did the district court abuse its discretion in reading it that  calendar for until such time that i had a lawyer and until such time that i would be able to proceed but not under any circumstances to dismiss it if we if we agree with that reading or think that least the district court with sufficient ambiguous that the district court should have brought you in and ask you what exactly do you want here then what would follow from that would we not have to send it back to the district court and say to the same judge or a different judge that's another issue that you're raising would we not have to send it back to some district court and say now you should do that now you should interpret you know bring in his quota and ask her what she meant and then you would say i want to put this case on the suspense calendar because i still don't have a lawyer is that what you're requesting happen think he would have been certainly much more prudent had this record asked or asked for a hearing to be held and for any further elaboration i think the circumstances w direct the time in light of the so i understand that but i'm trying to understand what you want us to do today do you want us to send this back to the district court and say what should have been done before was to ms corrado what she really wants and then if that happens what are you going to tell a district court you really want today well i'm asking that the case be reinstated and sent to a different district court reinstated as understand you're talking about the statue of limitations rulings correct but i'm first i have a little trouble understanding why we have a poetry restriction to reach that but i'm still trying to get at what you really want done it's the error of the district court was to dismiss the case with prejudice and what the district court should have done was grant your request to put the case on suspense until you had a lawyer is that not what we should have the district court do send it back and say look when this grotta really wanted was to have this case put on suspense calendar until she could find a lawyer so do that is that what you're asking us to do and i am i am i am asking that is clearly a very good option and i would be perfectly receptive to it in other words if you don't want to send it back to the district court so that you now can litigate it pro se you still don't prejudice what would you have done oh i would have said that is not my request to have the case would you have been willing to litigate pro se i would have asked you for the opportunity although the i think the problem is you have been given a lot of time to find a more and at some point a trial judge has to say enough is enough you've had enough time and then at that point you know either go forward pro se or discontinue with prejudice and want to ask if you were confronted with that choice that is discontinue with prejudice or proceed pro se what would you have done been a very very evil plot here that it sounds bizarre but i've been living a nightmare for over ten years there is no way that i would request my case to be this messed  sorry i do have a very simple question what happened to those lawyers that they quit did you fire them what happened those lawyers behaved and the most unprofessional and  s i was completely it was unexpected there's absolutely no problem cation or reason for that except the fact that he told me to work on the brief the draft  eight i mean he went on and i'm not trying to get into whether you correctly fired him or had reason grounds or whatever i just wanted to know what happened to those lawyers and the answer was you dismissed them because you were not satisfied with their services because of their abusive conduct and that's and the abusive conduct there and unfortunately have been conduct has been ongoing from the outset of this case and that's part of the problem with the lower court because they created such a chilling effect and no lawyers no legitimate reputable attorneys wanted to get involved because every single time we asked for any type of relief substantial request remember that she wished to and that it was causing serious harm to the mental health of her daughter at which that she could not allow to continue even if you paint council those factors would not t has no indication in a letter that any of the things that she were her motives for dismissing the action  for filing for those motions for failing to attend court ordered conferences after the finals got a factor the adequacy of the plant's explanation for the need to dismiss she's playing the children able to obtain replacement counsel as she wished and it stress well she says she wants to discontinue the litigation the reasons she gives make it clear that this is a request for a dismissal with prejudice to end the nightmare and i hereby granted instead the district court said plaintiff may only dismiss her case under rule forty one eighty two which requires an order of this court on terms the court considers just and proper and then the court says in effect i consider that as just and proper to dismiss it with prejudice why doesn't that implicate the obligation in our cases to make clear to ms cry this what's going to happen you know if you want this dismissed i'm going to dismiss it with prejudice and well if you didn't just say that is why didn't just say you asked for it and you got it the district court seem to treat this as at least an ambiguous request and then to set reasonable terms why it why don't why doesn't this court have to make clear that that's what's going to happen and give  individual defendants because he all of the claims against mr ranieri were dismissed on statute of limitations grounds by order of the court in february two months before the april water that is the subject of this appeal and we don't believe that this court actually has appellate jurisdiction to reach the arguments brought to reinstate the claims against mr ranieri and that would be because if the plaintiff is correct in her principal argument this was really just a request to dismiss without prejudice which is not a final order and therefore the case if we were to accept that argument the case wouldn't be over the case wouldn't be over well it wouldn't be as to those other people those other people but it still would against mr rangel except to the extent that if at some future date there is a final judgment that dispose of the case as to all parties then she would be in a position to appeal the  everything that went up if you chose to do so right will but not with respect to the arguments that she has made here because the argument she has raised about statutes of limitations are arguments that could have been made to the court below on the motion to dismiss but we're not that all goes to the merits of the thing that you're telling us we don't have jurisdiction to address but if we had there's no jurisdiction to address it there's no jurisdiction to address it but they are separate arguments and separate in regard to my request for this court to have the matter reinstated and to assign me to a different court again that the case was pending with the court below for four years the record is with sheer hostility vicious this against my attorneys and myself again and whatever we are trying to require us to for any form of relief any given set of circumstances where we were met with extreme hostility counsel for the defendants again this this isn't a sexual harassment case a retaliation case there is a information in regard to all of the evidence to support the factual assertions to support the claims that have that were filed i would like to rebut what mesereau lawrence sa with the court and with my attorney's theory are a trip and unfortunately the lower court rubber stamped all of their applications they were permitted to file repeated motions to dismiss the complaint repeated but they weren't they weren't repeated motions to dismiss first there was a motion to dismiss the complaint that you originally filed then you asked for leave to amend to add new parties the parties who are in the case opposed to that but they were lost and you were permitted to amend the complaint and then the new parties as was their right came in and moved to dismiss that's not a repeated motion that's a new motion by new parties that you brought into the case reimagined and unfortunately then they might have more years or attacked for doing exactly what they were told to do and in turn i was also attacked things that they continually attribute to me is is so incredibly astonishing i've never seen this i've been i was a prosecutor assistant district attorney and ethics counsel i was of activity on the part of any state agency or federal court agency and the statute of limitations i think what's most important here is also the fact that i followed my complaint two thousand and independent you but i think your your brief does a good job of laying those arguments out for us and we'll consider and they're properly before us at this time which is an issue but thank you very much for your argument