1. The word "substantial" is not found in the
governing statute, CPLR 5601(a), or the New
York State Constitution provision that provides for appeals as of right on constitutional
grounds. N.Y. Const. art. VI, § 3(b)(1)-(2). There
is a conflict in the circuits as to what the word
"substantial" means, and whether dismissal
of appeals as of right swa sponte deprives an
aggrieved party of his or her due process rights
under the N.Y. Const. Article I, § 11, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments. The Court of Appeals' sua sponte dismissal of the complaint
was an abuse of discretion and conflicts with
this Court and other circuits and whether the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state supreme court from advocating in the interest of the state where the
relevant time limitation to response in an action has expired and whether petitioner was
provided adequate process.

2. Whether Section 298 of the New York State
Division of Human Rights is unconstitutional
and in violation of equal protection and due
process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution where
the transfer of the proceeding is automatic by
the lower court to the appellate division without any participation by the agency, who was
a necessary named party in the lawsuit before
the lower court, and under what circumstances
does non-participation equates to constitutional equal protection under the law and due
process where a party did not timely appear,
move to dismiss, and/or answer and whether
the lower court and Appellate Division November 12 Order made based on a record that
did not exist below and/or on appeal, and/or in
the alternative, the November 12 Order made
based on an incomplete record transcript and
where the record was not settled as pursuant
to CPLR § 5532 AND R. 1000.4(A)(2) [53-55].
See Weeden v. Ark, 2 A.D.3d 1280, 768 N.Y.S.2d
891 (4th Dept.2003); Matter of Lavar C., 185
A.D.2d 36, 592 N.Y.S.2d 535 (4th Dept.1992).

3. The Court of Appeals' sua sponte dismissal
conflicts with the Courts own guidance regarding "Rubber Stamping" an agency's decision. Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v. State
Div. of Human Rights, 78 N.Y.2d 207, 216, 573
N.Y.S.2d 49, 54,577 N.E.2d 40, 45 (1991); Matter of Reape v. Adduci, 151 A.D.2d 290, 293,
542 N.Y.S.2d 562, 564 (1st Dept.1989). Did the
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department abuse and exceed its discretion in confirming the New York State Division of Human
Rights final determination where the court
lacked jurisdiction to do so thereby acting as
an advocate for the agency and whether the
New York State Division of Human Rights final determination was arbitrary, capricious,
done in bad faith, error of law, and was not rationally based.

4. Whether the actions of the Respondents-Defendants New York State

issues-being-raised