Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

RODRIGUEZ v. CITY OF NEW YORK

United States District Court, S.D. New York


December 17, 2004.

ADA RODRIGUEZ, et ano., Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEWIS KAPLAN, District Judge

ORDER

Plaintiffs' latest motion for reargument, etc. [docket item 58] is denied.

SO ORDERED. ORDER

  Plaintiffs move to disqualify and recuse the undersigned.

  The determination whether an affidavit in support of a motion to recuse is legally sufficient is made by the judge whose recusal is sought. See, e.g., Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22, 32 (1921) (it "is imposed upon the judge the duty of examining the affidavit to determine whether or not it is the affidavit specified and required by the statute and to determine its legal sufficiency"); National Auto Brokers Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 572 F.2d 953, 958 (2d Cir. 1978) ("a judge has an affirmative duty to inquire into the legal sufficiency of such an affidavit and not to disqualify himself unnecessarily . . ."), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1072 (1979); United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31, 131 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ("It is well settled that the involved judge has the prerogative, if indeed not the duty, of passing on the legal sufficiency of a Section 144 challenge."), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 933 (1977); Eisler v. United States, 170 F.2d 273, 278 (D.C. Cir. 1948) ("[T]he judge has a lawful right to pass on the legal sufficiency of the affidavit."), cert. granted, 335 U.S. 857, cert. dismissed, 338 U.S. 883 (1949); American Brake Shoe and Foundry Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 6 F. Supp. 215, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 1933) ("[W]hen such an affidavit is filed, the recused judge is restricted to a determination of its timeliness and legal sufficiency."). Moreover, rulings against a litigant "almost never" are sufficient to make out a legally sufficient claim of bias or prejudice. See, e.g., Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).

  The Court has considered all of plaintiffs' arguments. They all lack merit.

  Motion denied.

  SO ORDERED.

20041217

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.