Clark v. New York City Housing Authority
- Analisa Torres
- 1:24-cv-01625
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Clark v. New York City Housing Authority, Judge Tarnofsky explained how Clark could request recordings and why they would not bear on recusal.
La'Shaun Clark, the court's Clerk's Office, Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky, Judge Analisa Torres, and Defendant JLC's attorney were affected by the order's discussion of recordings, transcript requests, and recusal allegations.
What happened
In Clark v. New York City Housing Authority, La'Shaun Clark, who was proceeding without a lawyer, sought recordings of two court conferences and challenged the handling of her case. Earlier, Judge Analisa Torres had adopted a recommendation to dismiss Clark's claims and deny her cross-motion for summary judgment.
Clark had also asked to alter or amend the judgment, disqualify Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky and Judge Torres, and vacate Judge Torres's order. She argued that a law clerk's alleged connection to an attorney for Defendant JLC showed bias.
Judge Tarnofsky explained that Clark did not need a subpoena to request transcripts or recordings, described the procedures and fees for obtaining them, and stated that recordings would not cover the period before the court and all parties joined the conferences. Judge Tarnofsky also reiterated that the alleged law-clerk connection did not provide a basis for recusal. The provided order does not state a new disposition of Clark's pending motions.
The detailed version
- Clark v. New York City Housing Authority · No. 1:24-cv-01625
- Analisa Torres
- May 20, 2025
Background
La'Shaun Clark was proceeding without a lawyer. On January 31, 2025, Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky issued a report and recommendation that Clark's claims be dismissed and that Clark's cross-motion for summary judgment be denied. Clark objected and later moved to amend her complaint. Judge Analisa Torres adopted the report and recommendation and terminated the motion to amend. The Clerk of Court then entered judgment, and Clark filed a notice of appeal.
Clark subsequently moved under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment and under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) to disqualify Judge Tarnofsky and Judge Torres. Judge Tarnofsky recommended denying those requests, and Clark objected. Clark also moved under Rule 60(b) to vacate Judge Torres's order adopting the original report and recommendation. Among other allegations, Clark argued that Judge Tarnofsky appeared biased because a law clerk allegedly had a personal affiliation with the attorney for Defendant JLC.
Recordings and transcripts
Clark filed a notice of subpoena and subpoena seeking audio files from conferences held on June 11, 2024, and August 26, 2024. Judge Tarnofsky stated that, as a party, Clark did not need a subpoena to obtain copies of transcripts or recordings. The order directed Clark to request transcripts through the court's transcript-request process and to request audio files by letter to the Clerk of Court, enclosing a certified check or money order for $34 per audio file.
Judge Tarnofsky also explained that the court's practice was to begin recording conferences only after the judge and all parties were on the line. Therefore, the recordings requested would not cover the time before all parties and the judge joined the conferences. The judge further stated that even recordings or transcripts from that earlier period would not be relevant to whether recusal was required.
Recusal issue and disposition
Judge Tarnofsky reiterated that the law clerk was not acquainted with JLC's counsel and was not related to a lawyer at the firm where JLC's counsel previously worked who shared the law clerk's surname. The order explained that decisions are made by judges rather than law clerks and that acquaintance with a party, attorney, or witness, without factual allegations of bias or prejudice, is not enough to require recusal.
The provided text is an order explaining the process for obtaining recordings and reiterating the judge's reasoning about recusal. It does not expressly state a new ruling on Clark's Rule 59(e), Rule 60(b), or disqualification motions. The earlier recommendation to deny the motion to alter or amend the judgment and to disqualify was before Judge Torres for review.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.