Picard v. Greiff

S.D. New York

Picard v. Greiff

797 F. Supp. 2d 451, 2011 WL 2791279

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJuly 15, 2011

Docket11 Civ. 3775(JSR)

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 797 F. Supp. 2d 451 (Picard v. Greiff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Picard v. Greiff, 797 F. Supp. 2d 451, 2011 WL 2791279 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.

On June 17, 2011, Lawrence R. Velvel moved for leave to participate as amicus curiae in the above-captioned case. It is well-established that a district court has broad discretion to grant or deny an appearance as amicus curiae in a given case. See, e.g., United States v. Ahmed, 788 F.Supp. 196, 198 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y.1992). While there is certainly no requirement that amici be totally disinterested, “the partiality of an amicus is a factor to consider in deciding whether to allow participation.” See, e.g., Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. City of York, 162 F.R.D. 34, 36 (M.D.Pa.1995). Here, because Mr. Velvel is actually a party to another adversary proceeding brought by Irving Picard that is pending in the Bankruptcy Court, the Court concludes that Mr. Velvel could not provide the Court with “neutral assistance in analyzing the issues before it,” see In re Baldwin-United Corp., 607 F.Supp. 1312, 1327 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), and thus denies his motion to appear as amicus curiae.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close document number 6 on the docket of this case.

SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.

On June 17, 2011, Lawrence R. Velvel moved for leave to participate as amicus curiae in the above-captioned case. It is well-established that a district court has broad discretion to grant or deny an appearance as amicus curiae in a given case. See, e.g., United States v. Ahmed, 788 F.Supp. 196, 198 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y.1992). While there is certainly no requirement that amici be totally disinterested, “the partiality of an amicus is a factor to consider in deciding whether to allow participation.” See, e.g., Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. City of York, 162 F.R.D. 34, 36 (M.D.Pa.1995). Here, because Mr. Velvel is actually a party to another adversary proceeding brought by Irving Picard that is pending in the Bankruptcy Court, the Court concludes that Mr. Velvel could not provide the Court with “neutral assistance in analyzing the issues before it,” see In re Baldwin-United Corp., 607 F.Supp. 1312, 1327 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), and thus denies his motion to appear as amicus curiae.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close document number 6 on the docket of this case.

SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

797 F. Supp. 2d 451, 2011 WL 2791279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/picard-v-greiff-nysd-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack