New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is pursuing the case even though two former state governors asked him in May to drop it. New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, cleared the case for lower court action last month.

The case was originally filed by former attorney general and governor Elliot Spitzer in 2005. However, the key damage claims are no longer part of the case because of an unrelated 2008 Court of Appeals ruling.

The motion for summary judgment in the case, filed Friday, included a separate motion asking that Judge Charles E. Ramos, transfer it to another judge.

A third motion seeks a delay in further proceedings until the recusal motion is heard.

David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, New York, Greenberg and Smith's lawyer, said the case should be dismissed “because the attorney general, who no longer seeks damages, should not be allowed to prop up his meritless case by seeking remedies to which he is not entitled as a matter of law.”

Boies adds, “The defendants are further entitled to have the case decided by a judge who does not have the appearance of partiality.”

Amongst the issues brought up in the motion for summary judgment is the fact that earlier agreements and court decisions mean that, even if Greenberg, 88, and Smith, 68, are found guilty, the most likely practical outcome would be barring them from participating in the securities industry and from serving as officers and directors of public companies.

In their motion to have Ramos recuse himself, Greenberg and Smith allege during prior proceedings in 2010, Ramos “made a number of statements that continued to demonstrate the appearance of partiality against defendants.”

The motion also alleges that, prior to summary judgment, “Ramos has also been aggressive and argumentative toward counsel for defendants, even on occasion going so far as refusing to give counsel for defendants a fair chance to speak.”