Denis Reagan Hurley
How Judge Hurley rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hurley
Denis Reagan Hurley is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Hurley received a commission on November 5, 1991. Judge Hurley assumed senior status on December 18, 2004.
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 10, 2026).
How Judge Hurley decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Gussoff v. BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., he denied the defendant’s summary judgment motion after the plaintiff’s expert report created a factual dispute over whether warning paint at a curb ramp would have prevented her fall.
“Berkenfeld’s report, however, reasonable minds could differ as to whether defendants’ failure to provide yellow warning paint at the base of the curb would have prevented plaintiff’s accident by making the curb ramp noticeable to plaintiff.”
In Fox v. Costco, Hurley granted the employer summary judgment on disability claims after finding the employee had received the accommodations he requested and had not shown an available alternative position he could perform.
“In sum, to the extent Fox requested accommodations of Costco, they were granted.”
Procedural preferences
In Williams v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, he remanded consolidated debt-collection cases because the complaints alleged no concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing after removal.
“As the complaint does not allege any concrete injury sufficient to support standing, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these actions and the motion to remand must be granted.”
In Encompass Group, LLC v. Oceanside Institutional Industries, Inc., he dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction after the plaintiff did not adequately plead the citizenship of its LLC members.
“Here the allegation that Encompass is ‘a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of State of Delaware and maintains a principal place of business at 615 Macon Street,McDonough, Georgia 30253’ is insufficient to allege its citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.”
In Getlin v. Zoll, he converted a qualified immunity dismissal motion to summary judgment because the defendants relied on material outside the pleadings, and set a briefing schedule.
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss is converted to one for summary judgment and the Court shall establish a briefing schedule so that all parties are ‘given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.’”
In Flicker v. LT Online Corporation, he remanded the remaining state-law claims after an amended complaint removed the sole federal claim, finding that comity favored remand at that early stage.
“This case now involves only state law claims, rendering remand consistent with the comity interest that informs the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction.”
In Kabil v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC, he treated the pre motion conference letters as briefing on the motion after finding the issue fully framed, while allowing objections or additional authorities by letter.
“In the Court's view, the issue is fully framed such that the premotion conference letters should be treated as the briefing on the motion itself. To the extent that any party (1) objects to converting the premotion conference letter to the motion itself and/or (2) wishes to put additional arguments or authorities before the Court, it may do so by letter ... Ordered by Judge Denis R. Hurley on 3/22/2022.”
Cautions
In Bank of America, NA v. Pushing Grey, he granted summary judgment against a defendant who repeatedly delayed his opposition and whose eventual filing presented no meritorious argument.
“Though the Court need not consider Defendant Lisi’s opposition given that it is untimely, a review of the opposition reveals that Defendant Lisi does not present any meritorious arguments.”
In Fanelli, Hurley granted summary judgment on the remaining employment discrimination and retaliation claims. He found that the timing of the challenged actions alone did not establish that the defendants’ stated reasons were pretextual.
“temporal proximity alone is not sufficient to establish pretext.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied in its entirety.”
“The filing of the amended complaint rendered the motion to dismiss the original complaint moot.”
“This matter is hereby remanded to the New York State Supreme Court, County of Kings.”
“The motion for sanctions is denied.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the defendant=s motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied and this action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the motion of Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor Gregory Blue (Docket No. 68) is denied.”
“the motion to dismiss is hereby converted to a motion for summary judgment and the following briefing schedule is established.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against the defendants Northwell Staffing Agency, LLC, and Veronica Woods also known as Vernica Woods also known as Vertissha Woods, is granted”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted as to Defendant Lisi.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED (1) the government’s motion for a default judgment be granted in its entirety;”
“For the reason set forth above, the motions to remand are granted.”
“Costco’s Summary Judgment Motion is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 114 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 286 days (N = 4).
- A senior Eastern District of New York judge sitting in Central Islip on Long Island, still assigned cases despite taking senior status in 2004.
- The sampled docket splits into two clusters: a mid-2000s contested-civil group (Marchand v. County of Nassau and Richardt v. Suffolk County Police Department, both civil-rights cases; Bennett v. Labcorp; Salesmaster Associates v. Goodling, a contract case; United States Life Insurance v. Catarelli) and a more recent fast-disposition consumer and debt-collection group (Kabil v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau and Batista v. MRS BPO under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; Ginsburg v. JPMorgan Chase; Plastik v. Cox Media; plus Cai v. Mayorkas, an immigration-mandamus matter).
- The mix is qualitative, drawn from case-level records; many of the older dockets carry no detailed entry text.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Hurley was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2022.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 48 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 48 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 39 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 40 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 44 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, not for Judge Hurley: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 7,392 | 6.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,485 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 5,022 | 6.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 835 | 13.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 50 | 49.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 7,392 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 7,879 | 5.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 7,746 | 5.1 months |
| Sep 2022 | 7,588 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2021 | 6,709 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 6,062 | 8.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 6,858 | 8.1 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Hurley with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hurley, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hurley's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace