the next case on the calendar is on the beach the record there was not a full and fair litigation on the merits of missing needs claims and nationally where the counsel that she had and what in the cases rather in the briefs who called the first federal action essentially agreed to dismiss virtual entire case without her consent indeed without her knowledge such that while there was a motion to dismiss there the court was able to rely on the stipulation to get rid of virtually all of the claims indeed reconsider had passed so there was a notice of appeal that was filed and over the course of a few months she spoke with the attorney mr dell cole who actually didn't even provide her the initial filings but did never did substantial affidavits from miss and need and others regarding what took place in two thousand and eleven two thousand and twelve and thirteen in this regard the the affidavit i think began in a forty three of mr meet and then others where she didn't even know about this stipulation which was in december of two thousand and twelve that she didn't know about the motion to dismiss you know about the order which came in february of two thousand and thirteen and it was not claims the constitutional claims which he is asserting judge works are simply dismissed in one thousand nine hundred five there's some discussion of the equal protection claim quite frankly her weakest claim but the due process claim that she has the see none we have a lawyer who is presently being sued in our county supreme court for malpractise by ms amy not by the os but i believe she's proceeding pro se there for two stipulations which and he says in the appendix here which are entered into in december two thousand and twelve without her consent without even her knowledge so this court can issue a rule which says that if a lawyer functionally agrees to dismiss a case because that's what it ended up being without the you just suggested we should know your honor i don't see any thirty that has exactly this fact pattern i've never seen this before where a lawyer essentially agreed to dismiss his client's case without for whatever reason and it's unclear without the client's consent and knowledge well she did end up as a state court action is proceeding at the same time where she ended up making these assertions so it's not like she just sat in her hands for a year there was time of going to different lawyers where she did notice in a court she could have finality and so without even an effort on her part to set aside the judgment how do how do we really just well i think she didn't follow sixty sixty but she did engage in efforts there was she worked on the appeal spoke with other lawyers and frankly took this is an unsophisticated client who took a little while before she ended up bringing the new action and it was working on the state court action at that time and your honor i understand that we can have someone just say i did not authorize for two thousand and fourteen april second two thousand and fourteen was not formally ruled no she found out and september two thousand and fourteen that they probably would not rule on it i think this court's decision in sherman against town of chester two thousand and fourteen works looking at the context here where judge stroud makes the catch twenty two analogy back keep moving down the finish line that's moving the finish line to the goal line further that is what they did with his immedia morning your honors my name is mark ready i represent the village pelleas village holbrook bill john chase harvey marks henry foster matt mo thomas lamb sean mckee jeffrey dove there are two unrelated aspects to this case first there's the land use claims that are based on alleged denials of land use approvals and and then there's the police claims that are based on planned this encounter with the police in may two thousand and twelve his claims in this case are exactly the same are based on the exact same allegations that were asserted in a two thousand and eleven lawsuit that the plaintiff almost completely voluntarily discontinued and judge wexler actually did address the allegations on the merits he ruled that some of them were time barred at the time they were filed in two thousand and eleven and if you look at the first lawsuit the complaint in the first lawsuit in a complaint in this case you'll see that it's the same exact allegations except not a denial it was nothing more than the continuing effects of the prior time bar denial which was part of the two thousand and seven action ever been a decision there was never a decision in fact it is not not amount to be she can't build without  the reason is because she never made that application to the proper people she sent a letter to the building inspector and copied the mayor and the village clerk and in the letter and this is in the it's referenced in the complaint she told that you  know the long hours the letters letter says please release me something to the effect of please relieve me from the requirement to plant all these trees that's not something that the building inspector can do the tree response to learn not that i'm aware  hoping they're not a response to her letter saying you lying to the wrong place correct and saying that was just ignored i believe so there was no denial her her complaint asking for the certificate of occupancy in that letter was based on the two thousand and nine planning board order that required her to plant trees the building inspector cannot just vacate a planning court order caliper meaning the trees that she had cut down were large trees you can't replant large trees so you have to replant them small and caliper i believe the diameter so hundred seventy five small diameter would amount to however many trees large trees maybe thirty or forty trees it was but that was a decision that was made in two thousand and nine by the planning board if you wanted relief from the planning board's decision she had to either go to the planning board and ask for relief or go to the i and ask for a variance from that order just writing a letter saying hey can you just give me my c o now it doesn't restart the clock if you're denied in two thousand and nine you can't just keep coming back and say ok can i have it now just to restart the statute of limitations was regarding his experience in responding to suicide calls and his knowledge of the mental hygiene was properly admissible as background the jury's allowed to know the officer in their experience the claim in this case is that the pla ff was improperly transported to the hospital under the mental hygiene law so his understanding of his obligations under that law were completely relevant and she was also alleging there was a punitive damages claim which allege that his actions were malicious so his understanding of the law was necessary was necessary to rebut his allegations of malice there's also just numerous ample evidence to support the testified to the chain of custody it was supported by documentary evidence there is there is nothing to the contrary so so even if sergeant bikies experience was improperly admitted there was ample evidence to support the jury's verdict  on those claims thank you plaintiff alleged that under the joint action and public function tests blanco was a state actor but the mere fact that i think of hospital is subject to state regulation regarding mental mental health issues  negligence claim the state negligence claim was probably dismissed it was clearly a plea deal is a false imprisonment claim in fact it's labeled that way a page ninety six of the record pleading also and then just negligence if it is a negligence claim yes i understand your honor i but eight it alleges a negligence claim and should be reviewed as such and as a minimum should be assessed on that basis and not deemed time barred and to be clear there doesn't need to be and though there are some allegations about  a virtual conspiracy between the hospital and the police that doesn't need to be that in order for the doctors to have acted essential as state actors for there to be a claim and to be clear in case i was not clear before were something saying that that's not time response and even if this court were to find the previous conduct to be to not provide a basis for a claim because it is either time barred or judicata apply it certainly relevant in consideration about that attempt in april two thousand and fourteen together certificate of occupancy we are not coming before the court but a five line complaint that says she tried to get this when she didn't hear from them the complaint does state a plausible claim for constitutional impermissible constitutional taking even look looking solely at the april second two thousand and fourteen letter because she never did hear a response but this is consistent with the way that she'd been treated for years and with regards to mr adie's argument that there were  factual arguments that they're making and were simply even though we've let it get in this case for a while before this court where at the pleading stage at least we're going to see that and that is something that could be developed in discovery and never happened but what she is saying is that they prevented her from