than ok regis behavior we can talk about my question is why was there no probable cause i cannot answer to why there was no probable cause because  no rape kit there was nothing he was just merely standing in the prince it and then he arrested him to the complaining witness no he did not you do not speak to a woman had made a complaint that her husband had cut her himself in the deposition eighty six when i asked him why did you do this arrest you said it was policy you say to himself when we say we say there is an absence here there's a vacuum there's no probable cause you never went to the crime s so that means there was something that had happened there and it was here by the time she got to the hospital correct nurse to correct they were found even when he had when he had a jury trial that from the report not the language from the report it's the language it's not the circumcised language yes it's the language they follow and you disagree with what the report says but you don't deny that the report says no i disagree that the report would warrant that involves the fundamental right to liberty involving liberty or i will hear from the city of new york counsel pointed to is actually not the police report it's the report of that they had received the call and were going to the hospital it's not the report of the actual crime so it was before they'd taken the statement of the witness where he said that he had not interviewed the caseworker communicated to the police that the woman had said to her had said to the caseworker that her husband had raped her and had cut her vagina with the razor yes and then  the recent received report was this man arrested i believe it was two days later because they initially did not find him and i believe the report was on the nd and the arrest warrant the complaint the rest complaint is dated the t arrest but he clearly can't make the additional showing that the arrest was pursuing to an unconstitutional policy or practice by the city of new york there's no evidence of any unconstitutional policy in the record the only evidence in the record is that they followed the perfectly constitutional policy of arresting criminal suspects based on probable cause that's what he testified to and there is nothing in the record that contradicts that  there's probable cause i made an arrest and he gave that answer in response to a question what policy were you referring to when you said the arrests made pursuant to a policy so he is saying that the arrest was made pursuant to the policy that you arrest somebody if there's trouble cause to make an arrest and this case there was there  complaining witness and corroborating medical evidence and there's just that policy's perfectly constitutional and there's no evidence of any other policy in the record turning to the state law claims just briefly the case law is very clear says that if you have a state law claim you're required to comply with state notice of claim provisions in federal court the only just the only exception is ninety three dollars claim state notice of claim provisions don't override no evidence to support it so i suppose we should concern ourselves with right and i don't think they're you know even if you went back and permitted him to amend his complaint i don't think there would be any evidence to support it because i'm reasonably certain that there was no claim filed but the request for judge roger to recuse himself there's just no merit to that there is no evidence of anything in the record that suggests that judge broderick that would suggest to an objective observer which is standard that judge roger was not acting impartially there is mostly the arguments or complaints about his rulings which are the subject of the appeal not subjective recusal motion he doesn't allege there is a differential treatment in terms of giving extensions to the city that weren't given to mr t r or anything like that and some minor stray comments that might be construed as you know favorite as disagreeing with one's eyes we were arguments under light here just not sufficient a judge is allowed to even be go further than that i think the supr i asked him what was your problem because you said you never went any way i asked him did you pick up any any any any evidence he didn't do anything you said he just today between seven and then arrested him an eight pm if you look at the police arrest video he is trying to it can not be defeated unless it passes substantial procedural due process brown versus board of education that now they have that says ninety days you cannot sue the city for false imprisonment