Did the Second Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York create an illegal and irrebuttable presumption in New York State Civil Law and Practice Rules that violates due-process,equal-protection

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Did the Second Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York (the “Second Department”) so far depart from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power because the conflicting rulings in the Fourth Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York’s (the “Fourth Department”) ruling in Smith v. Smith, 291 A.D.2d 828 (4th Dept. 2002) together with the Second Department’s rulings in Khanal v. Sheldon, 74 A.D.3d 894 (2nd Dept. 2010) and in a Decision and Order in this matter dated June 26, 2020 create an “illegal and irrebuttable presumption” in New York State Civil Law and Practice Rules §5701 and CPLR §5015(a) by which the statutes contain language that is “so vague” that Appellants “cannot ascertain their obligations under the statutes,” and the statutes, “as applied” to Appellants, violate Appellants’ sacred and inalienable due process and equal protection rights pursuant to USCS Const. Amend. 14, §1? 2. Did the Court of Appeals of New York (the “Court of Appeals”) so far depart from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power and sanctioned such a departure by the Second Department due to its denial of Appellants’ motion for leave to appeal itself because it did not consider two prior decision and orders in this matter issued by the Second Department on June 26, 2020 and September 14, 2020 respectively as “non-final” orders that “necessarily affect(ed)” a final decision and order issued by the lower court on February 23, 2021, which created an “illegal and irrebuttable presumption” in New York State Civil Law and Practice Rule ii §5602(a)(1)(ii) and §5601(d) by which the statutes contain language that is “so vague” that Appellants “cannot ascertain their obligations under the statutes,” and the statutes, “as applied” to Appellants, violate Appellants’ sacred and inalienable due process and equal protection rights pursuant to USCS Const. Amend. 14, §1?