Thomas O. Farrish
How Judge Farrish decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
636(c) consent Social-Security review: applies the Second Circuit's deferential substantial-evidence standard; declines to remand solely for calculation of benefits absent conclusive proof of total disability, and treats sentence-four remand for further proceedings as the default when the ALJ erred.
“a remand solely for the calculation of benefits is an extraordinary action ... reserved for cases where the record conclusively establishes both a total disability and an inability to work.”
Procedural preferences
Discovery (referral): rigorous Rule 26 proportionality gatekeeping; requires an affidavit/proof to resist on undue-burden grounds; denies overbroad and 'discovery about discovery' requests, often without prejudice to narrowly-tailored renewal. Per his chambers practices, he treats a timely, carefully-considered Rule 26(f) report as critical and does not allow letter briefs or unauthorized sur-replies.
“Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) does not allow a party to roam in the shadow zones of relevancy and to explore matter which does not presently appear germane on the theory that it might conceivably become so”
Cautions
Prisoner IFP (referral R&R): scrutinizes the six-month spending record; voluntary commissary/entertainment spending that drops the balance below the fee defeats IFP, especially where outside deposits show a next-friend resource.
“While Mr. Manson does not currently have the $405.00 filing fee in his account, this is the result of his own voluntary spending decisions.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motion to reverse N = 2 |
Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motion to affirm N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to remand N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to compel N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for leave to proceed ifp N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Plaintiff's Motion to Reverse or Remand the Commissioner's Decision (ECF No. 17) is therefore DENIED”
“the Defendant's Motion for an Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED.”
“the Commissioner's Motion for Entry of Judgment Under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) With Reversal and Remand of the Cause to the Defendant (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED.”
“The Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Reversing the Commissioner's Decision (ECF No. 12) is DENIED to the extent that it seeks an order remanding for calculation of benefits, and DENIED AS MOOT to the extent that it seeks an order remanding for a rehearing”
“the Plaintiffs' motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
“I recommend that Judge Shea deny the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Caseload read from search_dockets rows + the GovInfo orders. The consent SS docket (e.g., Bulochnik 3:24-cv-01541, referred_judge Maria E. Garcia) is enumerable under 'Thomas O.E. Farrish'; his referral R&R dockets are assigned to district judges and are not enumerable by his name string.