thank you good morning your honour's i'm chris cosa chuck the pro se appellant this is an appeal of an order granting a motion to dismiss a challenge to a boy five million dollars judgment by confession which was obtained without service of process without notice without an opportunity to be heard and was not in compliance with c p l r three thousand two hundred and eighteen which is the new york judgment by confession statute these facts are undisputed and as such this judgement by confession is going on its face as a matter of law however the district court dismissed my challenge stating that the action was in substance and appeal of the judgment by confession it was not an appeal but rather a plenary action authorized by new york law and in some cases required under new york law there are two ways to challenge the validity of a judgment by confession one is by a motion before the court which entered the judgment bike and the nd is by separate plenary action which is what the district court case was i  invoked the district court's jurisdiction pursuant to diversity and as such the district court a sitting is a branch of the state court which can adjudicate such a challenge the district court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction under ricker feldman because i was a quote state court loser when in fact i was not a party to the state court litigation until after the judgement by confession was entered the district court relied on pretty to apply ricker feldman while i am in privity with an l g rocker feldman only bar my case circumstances a person although not a party has his interest adequately represented by someone with the same interest who is a party my interests are not represented at all so mr quest just let me interrupt for a nd let's let's assume we would address that there st there is no statute of limitations to challenging a void judgment because a void just meant takes on none of the characteristics of a valid judge and i cited to the requisite cases in my brief on that particular issue jurisdiction then it should have stopped and shouldn't have said anything about whether there is or is not a statute of limitations but i hold that there is no statute of limitations on challenging a void judgment thank you or any other issues that i'll address and then i want to discuss very briefly a rd issue st onlooker feldman as your honour's know there is a four point test to determine the applicability of program feldman i don't think that any thing is dispute in this case other than the question of whether mr cause a check qualifies as a state court loser missed a cause a check has conceded and i think the law's very clear that parties basis for disturbing that ruling in particular mr kloza chuck has acted in unison with an l g throughout the course of this litigation the claim the underlying claim is to close a check made in this litigation and then l g has made in the course of this long litigation is that the any mention it again today that the confession of judgment was improper that it was a fraud check as directed that litigation he has put in declarations and affidavits claiming that it was a fraud to various different courts d somewhat at the th hour for procedural perspective mr case on the plaintiffs side it didn't appeal and the reason we submitted didn't appeal is because there's a stake or loser it would not have any basis for pursuing an appeal so their interests as just judge coat pointed out have been totally aligned i think the case law if we look at it on pretty makes very clear that if the plaintiffs is totally aligned with the the you know original plaintiffs on and is merely someone who has been brought in under the control of that plaintiff that party is subject to the ripper feldman doctrine the nd point that mr kloza chuck raised was the statue of limitations point once again there's no dispute that the case in federal court was brought seven more than seven years after the original judgment certainly more than two years after the judgment koza chuck became aware of that judgment and also case law supporting it your honor i mean their case is an entirely different context such as forgery that address that but there's no case that we've been able to locate that says all you have to do is say the judgment was void and you can either judgment by the way that has been satisfied is void and you can challenge it ten years twenty years fifty years later the final point i know i don't have much time more time we address the considerable length you know our papers the procedural history here this is not the st claim that has made they have been challenging this judgement in cases cases in pennsylvania cases and better or florida there have been multiple applications in the state court here in new york including an application that had been made argued was fully briefed at the time it was all and certainly discontinued and there but multiple decisions in those cases that we would submit average solved many of the issues the underlying issues and for that reason another alternative and even though judge code only mentioned one alternative i think our language was there were other rounds for dismissal certainly collateral estoppel and race to come out of would be such grounds is that st off is the judgment by confession was entered on feb nd of two thousand and twelve neither energy nor myself even learned of the judgment until march of two thousand and thirteen and this because the parties that actually created this judgement by confession purposely put an address on the judgment by confession for an l g that was their own address so plaintiff's come back put its own address for an l g on that judgement so when the clerk sent out the notice and l g wouldn't actually get the note now they also went in in september of two thousand september four or rd or th of two thousand and fifteen they meeting selective advisors at this point as the assignee of comeback had satisfied the judgement which should have ended all of this litigation and had selective honored its own satisfaction we wouldn't be here but the problem is that post satisfaction in two thousand and sixteen august of two thousand and sixteen to be precise selective advisors and selective principles wife misses on filing an adversary complaint down in bankruptcy court in florida alleging that the full amount of the satisfied judgment by confession was still owed an outstanding and therefore they should be able to collect against n l g's a legitimate bona fide mortgage foreclosure judgment now these are issues i know we're kind of got a little bit astray here but those are issues that are pending down in florida the bankruptcy court said ok fine i'm going to allow them to get full faith in credit on this boy judgment by confession for five million dollars even though they satisfied it two years prior and the bankruptcy court did that on november st of two thousand and seventeen now those issues are pending before the th circuit which is going to hear argument here in november so as to the statute of limitations i don't think the statute of limitations has has run at all because it wasn't necessarily the judgment by confession being recorded in two thousand and twelve that has caused the damages it's the subsequent activity post satisfaction which occurred in september of two thousand and fifteen well within the six year statute of limitation if one exists at all but i would still put this case in the district court is the plenary action and i don't think anybody would dispute that we have both of those remedies so i think that the court to the extent that the court thinks that the only that this has to be decided in state  court there's not much i can do about that i believe that the district court when i invoked their jurisdiction pursuant to diversity is sitting as a branch of the state court who can for sure hear such a challenge to a judgment by confession