The documents say Ramos is moving “precipitously” to deny Greenberg and Howard Smith, 68, former AIG CFO, a jury trial, making him the “trier of fact.” The brief also said that Ramos is entertaining action on a motion for summary judgment in the case.

“The trial judge not only has manifested an appearance of partiality in this case, warranting recusal, but he has also plainly applied the incorrect legal standard in denying” Greenberg and Smith's recusal motion, their lawyers said in the motion seeking the stay.

David Boies, chairman of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, said in a statement following the decision that, “This case should never have been brought, and would never have been brought except for former Attorney General [Eliot] Spitzer's efforts to silence Greenberg's criticism of overly intrusive regulation.”

The case deals with allegedly fraudulent reinsurance transactions date to 1999 and 2000 and involved GenRe.

The charges were revived by new attorney general Eric Schneiderman. He won approval from the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court in June to proceed with the case. The court voted 7-0 to do so.

Greenberg argued in court papers that there was no admissible evidence that he orchestrated a $500 million transaction with reinsurer General Re Corp that misled AIG shareholders, and that the case should have ended in April when the state dropped a claim for as much as $6 billion in damages.

In his comments, Boies said that over the last 8.5 years, “the case that was brought has disappeared.”

He said all of the allegations that claimed billions of dollars of improper inflation of AIG's net income and shareholder equity have been dismissed.

The attorney general's multi-billion dollar damages claim has been dismissed, Boies said.

“All that remains is an abstract question of whether a finite insurance transaction that took place well over a decade ago was properly accounted for,” Boies said. “The attorney general has not produced a single expert willing to opine that the transaction in question had any effect on AIG's reported net income or shareholders equity or any material effect on any financial measure. No legitimate public purpose justifies the expenditure of taxpayer resources on the continuation of this lawsuit.”