Stephen L. Petrillo
How Judge Petrillo rules, drawn from 10 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Petrillo
Stephen L. Petrillo is a judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey in the Essex Vicinage. He joined the court in August 2016 and was designated an additional judge for the Complex Business Litigation Program in 2024. He earned a bachelor’s degree from Edison State College and a law degree from Rutgers Law School in Newark.
Judge Petrillo's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Petrillo's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026).
How Judge Petrillo decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In McClellan One Owner v. Barsan Global Logistics, Petrillo granted partial summary judgment on an unambiguous lease term. He found the certificate of occupancy triggered substantial completion under the agreement and rejected a request for further discovery on that interpretation issue.
“Contract interpretation in this context is particularly suited to summary judgment. ... There is no ambiguity in Section 2.1; the court's role is not to supply additional terms.”
In Dentsply v. Tri-State Dental, Petrillo enforced a Delaware choice of law clause against a plaintiff entity that had not signed the distributor agreement. He found its claims arose from the business arrangement governed by that agreement.
“Plaintiff cannot avoid the consequences of the contractual clause merely because the Dentsply LLC entity did not independently sign the agreement; the actions and liability pled all flow directly from conduct under the distributor arrangement.”
In Healing at Hidden River v. Aetna, Petrillo declined to consider defendants’ phone transcripts and plan documents at the dismissal stage because the plaintiff had not relied on them in framing the complaint.
“Plaintiff did not rely on these transcripts in framing the complaint. ... They lacked the actual notice required to trigger this exception.”
In Northfield Mass Associates v. Travelers, Petrillo held that exclusions limiting coverage for progressive construction damage were unenforceable because their effect conflicted with New Jersey's continuous-trigger allocation rule.
“New Jersey law does not require exclusions to carry the ‘non-cumulation’ label to be invalidated; rather, the operative question is whether the exclusion, as applied, would impermissibly thwart the pro-rata allocation and maximization of coverage for progressive harm.”
Procedural preferences
In Atlas Data Privacy v. Vonage, Petrillo denied summary judgment as premature where discovery had barely begun and facts about the defendant’s product functionality were largely in its possession. He reserved the statutory disclosure question for a fuller record.
“Where a party, opposing a motion for summary judgment, is unable to file supporting affidavits because the critical facts are peculiarly within the moving party's knowledge, the motion should be denied until the opposing party has had an opportunity to complete discovery.”
In Healing at Hidden River v. Aetna, Petrillo dismissed the agency claims without prejudice because the complaint asserted an agency relationship without facts supporting it.
“Paragraph 42 of the complaint states in conclusory fashion that this relationship exists but does not support that conclusion with factual material.”
In Roman, he reopened a protective-order dispute when the lack of opposition arose from a scheduling misunderstanding, then narrowed the discovery period and imposed confidentiality terms instead of barring the requested records wholesale.
“defendants have not met their heavy burden under Capital Health to justify a wholesale bar to discovery.”
Cautions
In Dentsply v. Tri-State Dental, Petrillo rejected the plaintiff's argument that the defendants had waived a statute-of-limitations defense; they had pleaded it in their answer and sought summary judgment before trial.
“However, defendants duly asserted statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in their answer and timely moved for summary judgment prior to trial, after development of the factual record.”
In Northfield Mass Associates v. Travelers, Petrillo considered Arch's summary judgment cross-motion despite its omission of the required statement of material facts. He denied the cross-motion because the disputed exclusions could not bar coverage for progressive construction damage under the continuous-trigger rule; he did not decide whether coverage ultimately existed.
“The cross motion was considered despite this argument.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“plaintiff's motion is GRANTED as to the declaration of substantial completion and Commencement Date only, and DENIED in all other respects.”
“Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature.”
“For all the foregoing reasons, the statute of limitations applicable to this action is that of Delaware -- three years under Section 8106. Plaintiff possessed all material facts necessary to file suit before April 14, 2013. ... summary judgment must be GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that Defendant's Motion to dismiss be DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.”
“the court DENIES defendants' motion for summary judgment as premature, without prejudice to a renewed application following further development of the factual record through discovery.”
“the court GRANTS plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Non-Cumulation Provisions -- USIC's Pre-Existing Injury or Damage Exclusion, Scottsdale's Continuing or Ongoing Damage Exclusion, and Arch's Prior Injury Exclusion and insuring agreement clause -- are declared unenforceable as applied to continuous or progressive property damage claims in construction defect litigation under New Jersey law.”
“Defendant Arch's cross-motion is DENIED.”
“Judgment is entered in favor of Columbus LTACH, LLC d/b/a Silver Lake Hospital and against Evangelos Drosos, Drosos & Associates PC, and Drosos Lorenzo &Associates PC,jointly and severally, in the amount of$31,425,128.00.”
“Accordingly, plaintiffs motion to disqualify FBT Gibbons is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, plaintiffs motion is GRANTED. The court's July 2, 2026 order granting defendants a protective order is VACATED.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED as to defendant Robin Gordon and DENIED as to defendants Patrick Morrissy and Jeffrey Crum.”
Draft for Judge Petrillo with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Petrillo, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Petrillo's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace