This is FALSE --
the "same time frame" was 9 months AFTER Sassower's August 24, 1984 verified complaint
commencing Raffe v. Doe

Here are the verified complaints in the three related lawsuits assigned to Conner: 

Sassower's May 15, 1985 verified complaint in Puccini v. Murphy (SDNY -- 85 Civ 3712)

Sassower's May 23, 1985 verified complaint in Raffe v. Riccobono (SDNY - 85 Civ 3927)

Sassower's June 3, 1985 verified complaint in Raffe v. Relkin (SDNY-85 Civ 4158)] 

"On October 11, 1985, Judge Conner dismissed all four actions as being barred by the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The Court stated:

"I have reviewed the complaint in this case and have compared it to the complaint file in Raffe v. Citibank, N.A.  On the basis of that review, I think it plain that the instant action is barred by the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel set out above.  The complaint in this action does no more than rehash the allegations put before Judge Nickerson.  It is clear that Raffe and Sassower have merely attempted to revive issues that Judge Nickerson expressly held were without merit or barred by prior decisions in the state courts.  Raffe v. Doe, 619 F. Supp. at 896.

This is FALSE, revealled, inter alia, by comparison of
Sassower's August 24, 1984 verified complaint in Raffe v. Doe &
 January 20, 1984 verified complaint in Raffe v. Citibank -- which Judge Connor purports to have done, and as to which, as to the former, he stated, "As best I can discern from the rambling and at times incomprehensible 73-page complaint...". 
This is further FALSE, as there is NOTHING difficult to discern and rambling about the 73-page complaint.

 "[Judge Conner] also awarded attorney's fees on the following grounds:

'[I]t is overwhelmingly clear that this suit is entirely without merit and that it has no basis in law or fact..."

This is FALSE --
and a simple reading of the August 24, 1984 verified complaint in Raffe v. Doe
makes this OBVIOUS.

"Finally Judge Conner issued an order permanently enjoining Sassower from bringing any further actions in federal court in connection with the Puccini dissolution or receivership. Id. at 898. The Second Circuit dismissed Sassower's subsequent appeal. See Nos. 85-7963, 7965, 7967, 7969 (2d Cir. March 18, 1986)."  

What was the basis upon which the 2nd Circuit dismissed these these four cited appeals?

 YET TO BE RECOVERED --
The March 18, 1986 dismissal order -- & record of Sassower's appeal
from Judge Conner's October 11, 1985 Decision

"In 1987, in flagrant violation of [Judge Conner's] injunction, Sassower filed another lawsuit in this District naming the same defendants, as well as adding Judge Conner and the judge who presided over Sassower's bankruptcy proceeding, the Honorable Howard Schwartzberg, as defendants. See United States for the Benefit of George Sassower v. Sapir, No. 87 Civ. 7135, 1987 WL 26596 (S.D.N.Y.1987). The case was originally assigned to the Honorable Charles S. Haight, United States District Judge, Southern District of New York, but after Judge Haight also was named as a defendant in the lawsuit, Judge Brieant took the case on reassignment.
On December 10, 1987, Judge Brieant dismissed the action on the grounds that Sassower's claims were frivolous and that Sassower had intentionally violated the 1985 injunction issued by Judge Conner."   

This FALSE --
Judge Haight was assigned to Sassower's October 5, 1987 complaint in US for the Benefit of George Sassower v. Sapir -- and, as reflected by the docket, remained assigned to the case, following Sassower's December 2, 1987 amended verified complaint, which added Judge Conner as a defendant, NOT him.

YET TO BE RECOVERED --
Record, including Chief Judge Brieant's UNPUBLISHED December 10, 1987 dismissal and injunction. 

"Judge Brieant prohibited Sassower from filing any actions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York without prior leave of court. Id. at 3 ('Sapir order'). This order applies to 'any actions' and, thus, expanded the injunction issued by Judge Conner in Raffe v. Doe which applied to the 'Puccini related' submissions.
This pattern of frivolous and vexatious litigation resulted in Sassower's disbarment from practice in New York courts. See In re Sassower,700 F. Supp. 100, 104 (E.D.N.Y. 1988), aff'd, 875 F.2d 856 (2d Cir.1989); Matter of Sassower, 125 A.D.2d 52, 53-54, 512 N.Y.S.2d 203 (2d Dep't), appeal dismissed, 70 N.Y.2d 691, 518 N.Y.S.2d 964, 512 N.E.2d 547 (1987); see also In re Disbarment of Sassower, 481 U.S. 1045, 107 S. Ct. 2174, 95 L. Ed. 2d 831 (1987). Moreover, in 1989, the Second Circuit dismissed the sixth appeal filed by Sassower in a one-year period and warned Sassower that, if Sassower's abuse of the judicial process continued, he would be barred from the Second Circuit. See Sassower v. Sansverie, 885 F.2d 9, 11 (2d Cir. 1989)." 

 
Starting with the 2nd Circuit's September 15, 1989 per curiam decision in Sassower v. Sansverie, 885 F.2d 9
(Lombard, Cardamone, & Friedman (by designation)), it upheld
"an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Korman, J.) enforcing an injunction requiring appellant George Sassower, pro se, to obtain approval of United States Magistrate Ross prior to filing suit in the Eastern District Court Clerk's office", without addressing, at all, 
Sassower's May 6, 1988 verified complaint in Sassower v. Sansverie (88-Civ-1423)
& his March 22, 1989 Appeal Brief which, inter alia, exposed the fraud of the 2nd Circuit's July 15, 1987 decision in Sassower v. Sheriff of Westchester, 824 F.2d 184.

Here's Sassower's March 30, 1987 Appellee Brief in Sassower v. Sheriff of Westchester (86-2458)
& also Sassower's April 5, 1987 memorandum

YET TO BE RECOVERED --
Judge Korman's UNPUBLISHED December 7, 1988 order therein enforcing injunction -- & record of Sassower v. Sansverie, materially recited by Sassower's March 22, 1989 Appeal Brief

* * *

The introductory paragraphs of Judge Leisure's Sept 8, 1993 Decision
included:

"...In 1985, after Sassower brought four separate actions attempting to relitigate the Puccini dissolution, the Honorable William C. Conner, United States District Judge of this Court, dismissed the actions under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, awarded fees to the defendants, and issued an order permanently enjoining him from bringing any further actions in any federal court relating to the Puccini dissolution or receivership. See Raffe v. John Doe, 619 F. Supp. 891 (S.D.N.Y.1985)"

"In direct violation of the injunction, Sassower filed another lawsuit in this District naming the same defendants and adding Judge Conner to the complaint. The Honorable Charles Brieant, then Chief Judge of this Court, dismissed the action as frivolous and entered another injunction prohibiting Sassower from filing "any actions" in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York without prior leave of Court. See United States for the Benefit of George Sassower v. Sapir, 87 Civ. 7135 (CSH) (S.D.N.Y.) December 10, 1987) (Exhibit 23)^fn1.  In addition, in July 1989, after Sassower continued to submit voluminous papers to the Clerk's Office in White Plains for filing, Judge Brieant orally directed the United States Marshal in the White Plains Courthouse to refuse Sassower access to the Courthouse unless he had a legitimate purpose for entering." 

"In an attempt to evade these injunctions, Sassower instituted the instant action by filing five separate lawsuits, relating to the Puccini dissolution and subsequent litigation arising therefrom, in New York State Supreme Court naming, inter alia, numerous federal and state judges and officials. The federal judges and officials (the 'federal defendants') removed these actions to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441(a) and (b), and §1442(a) (3). On February 4, 1993, this Court consolidated the above referenced actions pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

These five separate lawsuits removed from NYS court on January 20, 1993 --
all dismissed by Judge Leisure's September 8, 1993 Decision -- are:

Sassower v. Abrams, 92 Civ. 8515 (PKL)
November 12, 1992 amended complaint

Sassower v. Mead Data Central, 92 Civ. 9220 (PKL)
November 16, 1992 complaint

Sassower v. Feltman, Karesh, Major & Farbman, 92 Civ. 9221 (PKL)
November 12, 1992 complaint - Westchester Supreme Court

Sassower v. Brieant, 93 Civ. 343 (PKL)
(no complaint filed), dismissed for failure to prosecute

Sassower v. McFadden, 93 Civ. 342 (PKL)
(no complaint filed), dismissed for failure to prosecute

Here's what Judge Leisure's Sept 8, 1993 Decision states,
in its section entitled "SASSOWER's MOTIONS"

...Sassower has moved for a 'general bias recusal, or alternatively a personal bias recusal.' ...
The Court does not believe that there is any basis for recusal in the instant actions. The basis of Sassower's recusal motion appears to be the Court's Opinion and Order, dated February 10, 1993, which denied his motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin court personnel at the United States Courthouse in White Plains from carrying out the order of Judge Brieant requiring security personnel to bar Sassower from entering the Courthouse except for legitimate purposes. The Court emphasizes that '[a]dverse rulings alone do not amount to a claim of personal bias or prejudice as outlined in [28 U.S.C. §144].' Martin-Trigona v. Shiff, 600 F. Supp. 1184, 1187 (D.D.C.1984). Thus, '[d]isagreement with a court's rulings in an action cannot serve as a basis for recusal.' Id. The Court is aware of no grounds for recusal in the instant actions and, thus, Sassower's motion is denied in its entirety. .."

[Here's Judge Leisure's referred-to February 10, 1993 Opinion & Order --
materially rebutted by Sassower's February 1, 1993 affirmation, stating, inter alia,
"3a(1) The documented fact is that since the White Plains Branch opened, more than 10 years ago,
until the Brieant physical exclusion edict of July 1989, affirmant had only one (1) case in the U.S. District Court
in White Plains, -- only one -- which case was active from March to the beginning of July of 1987
(Vilella v. Santagata, 87 Civ. 140 [GLG])."
see, additionally, paras 8(b), 9, 13a.

RECOVERED?
the referred-to recusal motion of George Sassower --

Sassower's February 22, 1993 recusal affirmation

Sassower's September 10, 1993 supplemental recusal affirmation

-----------------

UNDER CONSTRUCTION --

Cited-to

1.
Appellate Division, First Dept's September 17, 1985 affirmance, without opinion,
in Raffe v. Feltman, Karesh & Major, 113 A.D.2d 1038,
the appeal from which, by a November 21, 1985 order,
the NY Court of Appeals dismissed, without opinion, 66 N.Y.2d 914

NEED appealed-from unidentified Order, Record on Appeal, & Briefs, etc.

2.
July 1, 1985 slip opinion in Raffe v. Riccobono, #9522/85 (criminal contempt conviction) -- which, on September 17, 1985, the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed, without opinion, 113 A.D.2d 1038, the appeal from which the NY Court of Appeals dismissed on its boilerplate "  , 66 N.Y.2d 915, and which the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert, without opinion, 480 U.S. 932 (1987)

Need appealed-from July 1, 1985 slip opinion, Record on Appeal, & Briefs, etc.

3.
Four orders of NY Supreme Court in In re Barr (#10816/80) --
January 23, 1985, March 11, 1986, March 1987, September 2, 1988
(Exhibits 24, 25, 26, 27 of federal defendants' March 24, 1993 motion to dismiss)

January 23, 1985 (January 23, 1985), March 11, 1986, March 1987, September 2, 1988

NO APPEALS IDENTIFIED --
and it is utterly impossible to believe they were not appealed!!