Gary Richard Brown
How Judge Brown rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Brown
Gary Richard Brown is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Brown received a commission on December 31, 2019.
Judge Brown's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Brown, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Submit courtesy copies in labeled and tabbed three-ring binders.
“All courtesy copies must be submitted in three-ring binders and clearly labeled and tabbed.”
Conferences
Make adjournment and extension requests in writing on ECF 48 hours in advance absent an emergency.
“All requests for adjournments or extensions of time must be made in writing on ECF 48 hours in advance, absent an emergency.”
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 Brown decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Cappelletti v. SharkNinja Operating LLC, he declined to exclude the design defect experts because the challenged gaps in their methods could be tested through cross examination and contrary evidence.
“This appears to be, as seems often to be the case, a situation in which the movant confuses a challenge to admissibility under Daubert with circumstances that go to the weight of the evidence. ... 'Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.'”
In Yang Jun v. 500.com Limited, he found that the alleged officer titles, certifications, and resignation did not create the strong inference of scienter needed for the securities fraud claim.
“plaintiffs 'must do more than allege that the individual defendants . . . had or should have had knowledge of certain facts contrary to their public statements simply by virtue of their high-level positions' ... any additional boost added by the circumstances of Pan's resignation fails to cross the threshold.”
Procedural preferences
In Baduria v. Sealift Holdings, he transferred a second action to the court handling the earlier related case after finding that the plaintiffs sought to relitigate unfavorable rulings there.
“The many issues that have been litigated and reconsidered in Louisiana should not be shuttled through this Court for an attempted end-run.”
In Birthwright v. Advance Stores Company, he predicted how the New York Court of Appeals would resolve an unsettled state-law question by weighing conflicting intermediate appellate decisions.
“Since there are now contradicting intermediate appellate decisions among the state courts, this Court is tasked with the duty of predicting how the New York Court of Appeals would decide the issue.”
In two related hospital IT employment cases, the court found onsite work essential and granted the employer summary judgment on requested remote-work accommodations. In one case it adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation; in the other it made its own summary-judgment ruling.
“the Court finds that there are no material issues of disputed fact, and defendant is entitled to summary judgment.”
In a reviewed insurance coverage dispute, the court resolved the duty to defend while declining to decide indemnity before the underlying personal injury action established the relevant facts.
“The Underlying Action has not yet been resolved, and its resolution hinges on facts not yet determined. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a declaration concerning the scope of American Empire’s indemnity obligation at this juncture.”
In Sachdeva v. Quarantillo, after denying habeas relief, the court barred removal during the appeal to preserve appellate review but declined to extend the petitioner’s secured bond.
“At the same time, the immigration issues raised by petitioner’s counsel arise from a complex area of the law, and this Court should endeavor to protect petitioner’s rights to appropriate appellate review.”
Cautions
In the removed Child Victims Act cases, he rejected the asserted bankruptcy-related jurisdiction and criticized the defendants’ attempted procedural route after finding that the plaintiffs were entitled to timely consideration of their claims.
“Because the plaintiffs are entitled to timely consideration of their claims, and defendants’ arguments are without basis in law, the request to defer decision is rejected as unlawful and unfair.”
In Shencavitz v. Sugimoto, he rejected a scaffold-law claim because the plaintiff’s injury during a hand-powered ascent did not result from gravity or the absence of a required protective device.
“Plaintiff was injured during an ascent powered by the pull of the shipyard owner. Gravity played no role in the accident. ... this case, which involves an injury resulting from a hand-powered ascent, did not result from the application of gravity to a person or object, and is therefore outside the ambit of the statute.”
An earlier state human rights proceeding can foreclose a later federal employment claim arising from the same events. In White, the court granted judgment on the pleadings because the state agency had already resolved the discrimination dispute involving the same factual grouping.
“her claim is also barred by res judicata.”
In the consolidated Buff and Shemtov vehicle-seizure suits, he denied dismissal after finding that the city’s traffic-enforcement interest did not justify blocking access to cars and demanding towing fees before a parking violation was adjudicated.
“Third, on these facts, the government’s interest in enforcing traffic codes does not justify these spot seizures. None of the practices alleged furthers interests in preventing congestion or promoting safety.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Based on the foregoing, defendants' motion is GRANTED, and the action shall be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana where a parallel action is pending.”
“Based on the foregoing, defendant's summary judgment motion is granted.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby adopts the R&R in its entirety, and the case is dismissed.”
“plaintiffs' motions to remand these cases prove meritorious and should be granted. ... the cases listed in the Appendix are hereby immediately REMANDED to state court.”
“Based on the foregoing, defendant's motion is DENIED. The parties are directed to proceed with discovery with the assigned Magistrate Judge.”
“Defendant's motions to exclude expert testimony and for summary judgment are DENIED.”
“Based on the foregoing, defendants’ motion to dismiss the sixth cause of action must be GRANTED in its entirety.”
“plaintiff’s claim for trademark infringement is dismissed with prejudice, while its claims for unfair competition under state and federal law are dismissed without prejudice.”
“Defendant’s motions to amend its answer and for summary judgment are denied as moot.”
“the Officer Defendants’ summary judgment motion is GRANTED except for the deliberate indifference and failure to intervene claims against Martingano.”
“The Medical Defendants’ summary judgment motion is GRANTED in its entirety.”
“plaintiff’s motion is DENIED and defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“plaintiff’s motion is DENIED and defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The result of that motion practice is significant: as described herein, plaintiff is left solely with a claim for nominal damages.”
“defendants’ motions for summary judgment are GRANTED and the case is dismissed. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants and close the case.”
“Based on the foregoing, defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 35 days (N = 5).
- Active E.D.N.Y. district judge sitting in Central Islip (Long Island; suffix 'GRB').
- The most-recent assigned cases (May-June 2026) are dominated by a 463 Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee surge (B.P.S. v. Genalo, Laminia Guachambala v. Blanche, Singh v. Blanche, Jiang v. Genalo) alongside FLSA wage suits (Vasquez Zacarias v. Benitez Landscaping; 710 Labor: Fair Standards), ADA/civil-rights accommodation and employment suits (Gates Jr. v. Whitney Court Plaza; Bernet v. NY State Parks - 445/443 Civil Rights), and ERISA/Taft-Hartley fund collections (Gesualdi v. Triboro Trucking).
- An older (2020-2021-filed) terminated sample mixes criminal cases (United States v. Gamarra/Soto), an FLSA suit (Jackson v. Enterprise Asphalt Paving), a products/Truth-in-Lending case (Allen v. Robert Bosch Tool), a government action (US v. Firstcare Urgent & Primary Care), and contract/diversity matters (D&G Construction v. Scohn; Beltran v. Smith).
- The caseload mix is qualitative, drawn from case-level metadata.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| 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 | 74 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 74 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 68 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 63 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 53 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 61 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 66 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 70 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 67 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 63 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 74 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 76 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 67 |
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 Brown: 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 Brown with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Brown, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Try Ezel Pro free for 7 days. Cancel anytime before the trial ends and you pay nothing.
- Grounded in Judge Brown's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace