motion under section 2255, the government’s argument is persuasive with respect to Green’s filings. A motion under section 2255 must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the movant and of which he has or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have knowledge and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, Rule 2(b); see United States v. Horvath, 157 F.3d 131, 132-33 (2d Cir.1998) (per curiam) (facts supporting claimed error need only be set forth generally). Courts are often called on to determine whether a moving party’s generalized allegations are sufficient to meet the requirements of section 2255. See, e. g., United States v. Aiello, 814 F.2d 109, 113 (2d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Here, however, Green’s June 10, 1997 and
holding conclusory assertions of intent to cause insufficient without supporting facts holding that vague conclusory statements are insufficient holding that a section 2255 petition must be based on more than airy generalities conclusory assertions and hearsay statements holding that in order to defeat successfully a motion for summary judgment more than mere allegations and conclusory statements must be offered holding that affidavits that are conclusory and based on hearsay can not be used to oppose motion for summary judgment