Joan Marie Azrack
How Judge Azrack rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Azrack
Joan Marie Azrack is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Azrack received a commission on December 19, 2014. Judge Azrack assumed senior status on December 19, 2024.
Judge Azrack's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Azrack, 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
Motions
For motions without a required pre-motion conference, submit a proposed briefing schedule.
“For all other motions, the parties shall submit a proposed briefing schedule to the Court.”
Motions
Request a pre-motion conference by ECF letter of no more than three pages.
“To arrange a pre- motion conference, the moving party shall file (via ECF) a letter not to exceed three pages in length setting forth the basis or bases for the anticipated motion.”
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 Azrack decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Moudis v. United States, she found that mailing a notice of claim did not satisfy the FTCA presentment requirement and that the common-law mailbox rule did not establish receipt by the agency.
“the mailbox rule is inapplicable to claims brought under the FTCA, and that therefore the mere mailing of a notice of claim does not satisfy the FTCA's presentment requirement. The statute and corresponding regulation make clear that actual receipt is required”
In Volpe v. Ryder, she adopted a recommendation dismissing the substantive-due-process claim because the alleged conduct was governed by more specific First and Fourth Amendment standards.
“a substantive due process analysis is inappropriate where a more specific constitutional standard is directly applicable.”
In Steger v. Nassau Community College, she adopted a recommendation leaving the reasonable-accommodation claim for trial because the accommodation's reasonableness remained fact-dependent, while granting judgment on constructive discharge.
“where an accommodation is made, whether that accommodation is reasonable is a fact-specific question that often must be resolved by a factfinder.”
In Incorporated Village of Old Westbury v. American Alternative Insurance Corp., she adopted a recommendation finding that unwanted contact or confinement without physical injury did not trigger the policy's bodily-injury coverage.
“The Court does not agree that unwanted physical contact or physical confinement, without more, constitutes a ‘bodily injury.’ The Court also concludes that the term ‘bodily injury’ is not ambiguous on this point.”
Cautions
In one criminal case, she allowed a firearms comparison expert to testify under stated language limits. A cited study on contextual bias provided material for cross-examination but did not itself establish a Rule 702 defect warranting exclusion.
“This article might provide fodder for cross-examination concerning contextual bias, but it does not render the Government’s expert opinions deficient under Rule 702.”
In one criminal case, the court denied post-trial discovery sought for an anticipated new-trial motion where the defendants had known of the alleged issue before trial and sought intervention only after the government’s rebuttal. The court required a supported reason for further discovery.
“The Court will not grant Defendants post-trial discovery into an issue that Defendants were obviously aware of prior to trial”
In Winters v. Phountain PH Holdings Corp., she declined to shift all defense fees based on an allegedly exculpatory video because the movant omitted the cited deposition testimony. She separately awarded a narrower $4,500 discovery sanction.
“Cooley’s motion, however, does not include the relevant deposition testimony from Cotrone concerning this video.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED.”
“Defendants' partial motion to dismiss is therefore GRANTED in its entirety.”
“the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint is granted and the plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”
“(2) Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's ADA reasonable accommodation claim is DENIED; ... and (4) Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's constructive discharge claim is GRANTED.”
“(1) Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to her ADA reasonable accommodation claim is DENIED; ... (3) Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to her constructive discharge claim is DENIED”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against Habeeb is granted.”
“The motion for default judgment is granted as to Sankar but denied as to Slomins Inc., with leave to renew.”
“Accordingly, I grant defendants' motion for summary judgment.”
“plaintiff's motion is GRANTED and plaintiff is awarded a default judgment against defendants in the amount of $148,336.89.”
“The Court grants defendant's motion for summary judgment.”
“The Court therefore rejects Plaintiff's objections and ADOPTS the R&R as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is DENIED and Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is DENIED”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Bankruptcy Court's January 6, 2025 Opinion and January 10, 2025 Order are hereby AFFIRMED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 549 days (N = 6).
- A senior Eastern District of New York judge in Central Islip on Long Island, still actively assigned despite taking senior status in December 2024; recent assignments confirm she continues drawing new criminal and civil cases.
- Her sampled docket is dominated by a substantial criminal docket and a broad civil mix: mortgage foreclosures, FLSA wage-and-hour labor cases, ADA public-accommodation access, Social Security appeals, consumer credit, Federal Tort Claims Act personal injury, and mass-tort matters.
- The mix is qualitative, drawn from case-level records.
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 | 6 |
| 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 | 42 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 6 | 42 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 39 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 45 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 54 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 62 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 72 |
| Mar 2023 | 5 | 73 |
| Sep 2022 | 6 | 87 |
| Mar 2022 | 7 | 85 |
| Sep 2021 | 11 | 88 |
| Mar 2021 | 5 | 76 |
| Sep 2020 | 16 | 79 |
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 Azrack: 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 Azrack with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Azrack, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Azrack's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace