please the court this appeal comprehend three questions one where the bucks can timely appeal to bankruptcy court order the ny ing its motion  greenberg's who did not make the dispositive argument the state court that the foreclosing plaintiffs with an assumed corporate name failed to provide it with jurisdiction by not paying registration in the new york secretary of state in compliance with general business law section one hundred and thirty b one whether on the stern v marshall bankruptcy court by failing to ask for buckskins consent lacked jurisdiction in a matter that did not arise either on the title eleven or in the bankruptcy  firstly the bank should bankruptcy court granted buckskins st motion to reconsider or reconsideration ruling that indeed that had indeed overlooked some  punished for trying to avoid burdening his court with an appeal if resolution to be obtained in a lower court if anything buckskin should receive approbation for trying to conserve scars the court rules and the fact of the matter is  filing bankruptcy even though the attorneys were made notice of it and my client's attorney was present at the time was originally brought about at least seven years ago or so and as you know we can't argue law that didn't exist at that time but i'm not saying that i'm not saying that i'm saying that what transpired were not taken in the proper order or in the absolutely clear that in new york state you cannot file in any court a fictitious name i well that's a that's your malpractise your math experts let me just ask one last question about that so you said that it's because it's not it's a fix it's fictitious but didn't the fifty court find that the the board of the home association was authorized by the bylaws and ticklish of covenants to act on behalf of the homeowners association but that there is a board right and those are people who run the homeowners association and the bylaws authorized them to act on behalf of the homeowners association so the board so why wouldn't that why wouldn't they be allowed to walk into court and have the homeowners association exercise its right because  that was created that could do that my client controlled the entire vote of the board at all times so how could they go in laws regarding the difference between a association homeowner's association and a corporate corporation doesn't even if you are right about the board of directors you know the remedy would have been somebody and then the caption read and just substitute the d no no they could amending the caption was the whole issue of the matter you can't amend the caption the decision was wrong from every aspect the board that the home on this association was prevented from putting a lien on in the st place number one number two the fact is they had no position whatsoever they weren't allowed in a court room with a fictitious name it's clear in the new york state law and picked that when you say a fictitious name you mean the reference to the board as opposed to the when my homeowners issue i understand you i think i read your papers to try to distinguish glinka on the basis that link involved excessive motions for reconsideration that simply rehash the same argument ruling on the st motion and either standing argument correctly and if so you know two questions one where does bad legal distinction find support in the case law and two just factually what is it about two motions for consideration that really makes them different from one another was never merited claim by the attorneys for the greenberg's and never was a defense put in any time with any arguments that he said an interim ruling and we appealed bat properly and within the time frame but the time frame isn't told and any time we could  honor i believe and i i wasn't the attorney in the original situation but you you have the record before you so where would you make that all the the buckskins clouding the procedure is now over a decade it starts out with the very beginning of this which is the failure to pay the homeowners association  clearly as the the court had ruled and bound book scan was aware had been served with the complainant was aware of the pool closer option never took any action to deal with the case was refused an extension of time to answer never appeared and all of those things are part of the record in judge decision where she refused to several months after the default was entered and my client tried to make the argument that because they had been some settlement discussions ongoing that that was a reasonable cause excuse to allow the court to  adversarial proceeding was was filed against my client with the argument which is again completely lacking in merit that my client should have raised an argument that because the caption was essentially wrong because the word board of directors of the association as opposed to the association was being that's the point that that would have forced the court as a matter of law that they  non entity and and a party that that was there's no argument here that the contract was valid between the association and buckskin and buckskin bill to pay and was in breach of that contract only issue was that whatever part on this point of the board is authorized by the associations bylaws to act on behalf of the association absolutely absolutely so the you know and make it's to the point of of to the proceeding why would why would that be and that that does happen from time to time when there's an allegation that the bankruptcy was forced by some error by the lawyer then it would be deemed a years that i've been defending lawyers i often find myself in bankruptcy court for that very reason is that the the the debtor is claiming that because of an error by a lawyer  were in let's let's just assume for the low that it's not core do you think of the conduct of buckskin in this case would be consent to the bank proceeding and we've been living our lives in this case with that as as the decision that was uncontested by either party so i have to think about that and i'm not really sure you know how to answer that never filed an appeal till after a year to the district court instead they moved sestak times over and over rehashing essentially the same arguments the bankruptcy court and it was only after the ruling in the rule says the time will not begin to run into the last such remaining notion of those listed in the rule one of which is a motion for reconsideration to wasn't there seconds motion for reconsideration the last such remain in with that make a difference so if the motion for reconsideration had new or different arguments then it should be told overlook two arguments and they did a motion for reconsideration the nd time and said well now that you've decided those issues we think you should reconsider the way you decided them wouldn't that be would that be something new they couldn't have done in the st motion for reconsideration because the a notice of appeal there was no there there was nothing to stop them from doing that and i understand that all right thanks very much i appreciate it judge church committee i don't have any additional questions  character you have no responsibility whatsoever to respond it isn't an entity so that we would put in a completely would do any judge committee jumping in that the the c p l are provides a time limit for objections to a party's capacity to sue a which implies that you actually have a duty to speak up on that issue and your client would be treated as a core proceeding is that is that accurate at least ok so you're you're saying that you did accept the bankruptcy court's decision that it was a core proceeding was you just you just asserted that it didn't make a difference that you didn't object to the character decision that it would be treated as a court proceeding and i'm asking why it doesn't make a difference and everybody agrees that you can consent to any treaty cation by the bankruptcy