Nusrat Jahan Choudhury

How Judge Choudhury rules, drawn from 34 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Position
District judge
Appointed by
Joe Biden (Democratic)
Commissioned
July 5, 2023
ABA rating
Well Qualified (substantial majority); Qualified (minority)
Education
Columbia University (B.A., summa cum laude, 1998); Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs (M.P.A., 2006); Yale Law School (J.D., 2006)
Signed orders read
34

About Judge Choudhury

Nusrat Jahan Choudhury is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Choudhury received a commission on July 5, 2023.

Judge Choudhury's practices and standing orders

Rules for cases before Judge Choudhury, 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

Deliver two courtesy hard copies of ECF submissions of at least 20 pages.

“Parties shall deliver to Chambers two (2) courtesy hard copy of all written sub- missions filed on ECF that are twenty (20) pages in length or more, including any exhibits or attachments.”

Motions

State the basis when requesting permission to exceed memorandum page limits; good cause is required.

“Requests to file memoranda exceeding these page limits must clearly state the basis for the request and will only be granted for good cause shown.”

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).

Key rules from these orders

How Judge Choudhury decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In First Horizon Bank v. Intercontinental Capital Group, she granted an unopposed dismissal motion after independently examining the law despite inadequate briefing by the moving party.

“Despite ICG's inadequate briefing and given my obligation to test the sufficiency of the pleadings' allegations in light of FHB's failure to oppose the Motion, I have located and analyzed the relevant law to reach my conclusions in this Order.”

In Securities and Exchange Commission v. A.G. Morgan Financial Advisors, she denied both sides’ partial summary judgment motions because material facts remained disputed on the securities and broker registration claims.

“genuine disputes of material fact preclude a determination as to Defendants’ liability on Counts I and IV.”

Procedural preferences

In Orr v. PHH Mortgage, she refused jurisdictional discovery because the removing defendants supplied no fact specific basis for diversity beyond the plaintiff’s residence and presence in Georgia.

“the PHH Defendants have not offered any ‘fact-specific jurisdictional allegations’ other than Plaintiff's residence and presence in Georgia at the time the Verified Complaint was signed. ... Accordingly, the PHH Defendants have failed to demonstrate that jurisdictional discovery is warranted here.”

In A.V. v. New York State Board of Law Examiners, she affirmed denial of the plaintiff’s motion to proceed anonymously after weighing the Sealed Plaintiff factors and finding that redaction could protect sensitive medical information.

“the balance of the ten Sealed Plaintiff factors weighs in favor of denying the motion, especially in light of the alternative mechanisms existing for protecting sensitive medical and health information”

In Terzi v. Mosquera, she denied remand after a damages response supplied new grounds for removal following an earlier remand.

“the bar on successive removal petitions does not apply when a party is able to demonstrate changed circumstances.”

In Empire Community Development v. Larsen, she required proof that the revised magistrate recommendation had been served before deciding whether the time to object had expired.

“Plaintiff must file proof of service of the Revised Oral R&R by October 17, 2025”

Cautions

In Teoh v. Manhasset Restaurant LLC, she adopted a recommendation reducing the prevailing plaintiff’s attorney-fee award from the requested $93,764.67 to $48,170.77 by lowering rates and hours.

“Teoh’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (ECF No. 95) is granted in part, with reduced rates and hours as set forth in the R&R.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

DeFreitas v. Senft
2:24-cv-06320 · 2024-12-13

Her own signed MEMORANDUM AND ORDER dismissing a pro se action for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) after the plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee (IFP having been denied) and abandoned the case. This is a non-motion disposition. The order states: 'the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.' Applies the five Baptiste v. Sommers factors.

Empire Community Development, LLC v. Larsen
2:23-cv-05896 · 2025-01-29
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Having reviewed the Motion for Default Judgment, the R&R, and the applicable law, I find no clear error and adopt the thorough and well-reasoned R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, I grant Empire's Motion for Default Judgment.”

First Horizon Bank v. Intercontinental Capital Group, Inc.
2:23-cv-09380 · 2025-05-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons set forth above, ICG's Partial Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (ECF No. 18) is granted and Claims IV and V against ICG are dismissed with prejudice.”

Teoh v. Manhasset Restaurant LLC
2:22-cv-04110 · 2025-06-23
Motion for attorney fees (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Teoh's Motion for Attorney's Fees (ECF No. 95) is granted in part, with reduced rates and hours as set forth in the R&R. The Court awards Teoh $56,553.02 as follows: $48,170.77 in attorney's fees and $8,382.25 in costs.”

Orr v. PHH Mortgage
2:25-cv-00424 · 2025-08-13
Motion for reconsideration (defendant) Denied

“the PHH Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 35) is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, or in the alternative, denied because the PHH Defendants have not identified any intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or prevent a manifest injustice that would warrant reconsideration under Local Rule 6.3.”

A.V. v. New York State Board of Law Examiners
2:25-cv-04128 · 2025-11-28
Motion to proceed anonymously (plaintiff) Denied

“Nonetheless, the balance of the ten Sealed Plaintiff factors weighs in favor of denying the motion, especially in light of the alternative mechanisms existing for protecting sensitive medical and health information, such as redacting all filings that detail A.V.'s medical conditions, diagnoses, and treatment. ... Judge Dunst's denial of A.V.'s motion to proceed anonymously is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. ... The Oral Order is hereby affirmed.”

31 Alanson Lane, LLC v. Town of Southampton
2:23-cv-08938 · 2026-02-15
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendants' motion to dismiss this action under Rule 12(b)(1) and the Burford abstention doctrine is denied. ... Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' federal due process claim based on the alleged excessive nature of the Trustees' dimensional fee requirement and claims under New York common law under Rule 12(b)(6) is granted.”

United States v. Phillips
2:22-cv-02564 · 2025-09-19
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Cross-Motion (ECF No. 61) is granted.”

C.K. v. Bassett
2:22-cv-01791 · 2024-02-22
Class certification (plaintiff) Granted

“For the reasons set forth above, this Court grants Parties' Joint Motion to certify the proposed EPSDT and ADA Classes, extend current litigation deadlines, and stay litigation activity for three months for the purpose of settlement discussions.”

Mohd v. Noem
2:25-cv-02183 · 2025-07-28
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Granted

“For the reasons set forth above, Mohd's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 2) is granted. During the pendency of this litigation, Defendants are enjoined from: (1) terminating Mohd's records in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (‘SEVIS’) and revoking his F-1 student status; and (2) directly or indirectly enforcing, implementing, or otherwise taking any action or imposing any legal consequences ... as a result of that decision.”

Berry v. New York
2:24-cv-06584 · 2024-11-28
Habeas corpus petition (petitioner) Denied

“Because Berry does not provide any valid explanation as to why his Petition is not premature, the Court denies the Petition without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254(b)(1) and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.”

Freedom Mortgage Corporation v. Petriello
2:22-cv-07310 · 2025-06-20
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Freedom Mortgage's Second Motion for Default Judgment against Frank Petriello and Joseph H. Levine MD PC (ECF No. 38) is granted in part and denied in part. Default judgment is granted with respect to Frank Petriello's liability and is granted in part and denied in part with respect to damages and other relief. Default judgment is denied with respect to Joseph H. Levine MD PC with leave to renew following sufficient service.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Freedom Mortgage's Motion for Summary Judgment against Juliano Petriello (ECF No. 40) is granted with respect to liability and is granted in part and denied in part with respect to damages and other relief.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

  • All cases in the as-assigned sample were filed 2026 and remain pending.
  • The mix (alien-detainee habeas surge, FLSA labor, contract, pro se prisoner, social-services) is a typical Long Island civil intake.
  • Grounded motion outcomes would require her older terminated dockets (e.g. Teoh 22-cv-04110, Empire 23-cv-05896, the Arch/First Horizon contract cases), whose entries trace the motion and ruling timing for real latency; a fuller profile could draw those in.

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 months21
Bench trials submitted more than six months0
Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months0
Social Security appeals pending more than six months1
Civil cases pending more than three years25
ReportMotions over six monthsCases over three years
Mar 20262125
Sep 20251325
Mar 20252727
Sep 2024720
Mar 2024018
Sep 202300

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 United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, not for Judge Choudhury: 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.

CasesMedian time
All civil cases closed7,3926.7 months
Closed with no court action1,4853 months
Closed before pretrial5,0226.9 months
Closed during or after pretrial83513.9 months
Closed during trial5049.6 months
12 months endingCases closedMedian time
Sep 20257,3926.7 months
Sep 20247,8795.8 months
Sep 20237,7465.1 months
Sep 20227,5886.2 months
Sep 20216,7097.9 months
Sep 20206,0628.6 months
Sep 20196,8588.1 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 Choudhury with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Choudhury, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Choudhury's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace