Steven L. Tiscione
How Judge Tiscione rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Tiscione
Steven L. Tiscione has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of New York since 2016. Based in Central Islip, he earned a bachelor’s degree from Hofstra University and a law degree from Yale Law School.
Judge Tiscione's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Tiscione, 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.
- Practices and Rules ↗
- Discovery Plan Worksheet (Tiscione) ↗
- Instructions for Filing Ex Parte Settlement Positions (Tiscione) ↗
Key rules
Motions
In represented cases, request a pre-motion conference before a dispositive motion.
“In all cases where the parties are represented by counsel, a pre-motion conference is required before making any dispositive motion.”
Motions
Keep a pre-motion conference request letter to two pages without affidavits or exhibits.
“Letters requesting pre-motion conferences shall state, in brief, the grounds for the motion, shall not exceed two pages, and shall not include affidavits or exhibits.”
Conferences
File an ex parte settlement position through ECF without a separate motion and keep it to five pages including attachments.
“The position statement must not exceed 5 pages INCLUSIVE of any necessary exhibits/attachments.”
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 Tiscione decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Love Grace, after the plaintiff withdrew its federal claims, Tiscione recommended dismissing the remaining state-law counterclaims and third-party complaint without prejudice. He found that the case's progress through discovery did not justify retaining jurisdiction, and recommended denying summary judgment on a counterclaim.
“I recommend that the judicial economy concerns raised here do not, standing alone, justify this Court expanding its traditional use of pendent jurisdiction.”
In Black v. Dain, Judge Tiscione recommended approval of an infant compromise after finding the settlement fair and reasonable in light of arm's-length negotiations, substantive discovery, and the endorsements of the infants' guardian and attorney.
“I conclude that the settlement is fair and reasonable because it is the result of arm’s length negotiations, after the completion of substantive discovery, and has been endorsed by the infant plaintiffs’ natural guardian and attorney”
Procedural preferences
In Frank Brunkhorst Co., LLC v. Castellini, Judge Tiscione recommended granting default judgment while denying interest and costs without prejudice to renewal; the district judge adopted that recommendation.
“recommending that I grant the plaintiffs default judgment motion ... and deny the plaintiffs requests for interest and costs without prejudice to renew”
In the Hornstein vessel limitation proceeding, Tiscione found that the claimants' state complaint gave written notice from which a claim exceeding the vessel's stated value was reasonably possible to infer. He recommended dismissing the federal petition, filed more than six months later, as untimely.
“this Petition was not filed within six months of the Petitioner’s receipt of the Claimants’ notice of the claim. Accordingly, I respectfully recommend that the Petition be dismissed as untimely”
Cautions
In Bank v. Simple Health Plans, LLC, Judge Tiscione recommended denying a stay as to the individual defendants because the receivership notice did not apply to them; the district judge adopted that recommendation.
“deny the motion to stay the action against the Individual Defendants because the Notice of Receivership and Stay issued by Judge Gayles does not apply to the Individual Defendants”
In Gardner, Tiscione recommended dismissing two plaintiffs' claims with prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The district judge adopted the recommendation after no objections were filed.
“a Sua Sponte Report and Recommendation recommending that the claims of Plaintiffs ... be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (b)”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“As recommended by Judge Tiscione, plaintiff's motion for a default judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's motion is granted with respect to defendant Johnny's Restaurant ... liability under the Federal Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 605, and denied with respect to defendant Savatri Lall. ... Plaintiff is awarded $7046.50”
“I conclude that the settlement is fair and reasonable because it is the result of arm’s length negotiations, after the completion of substantive discovery, and has been endorsed by the infant plaintiffs’ natural guardian and attorney. Therefore ... I recommend that the proposed infant compromise order ... should be GRANTED.”
SUA SPONTE Rule 41(b) dismissal: Tiscione sua sponte R&R (2019-05-29) recommending dismissal with prejudice of two plaintiffs' claims for failure to prosecute; ADOPTED by District Judge Nina Gershon (unopposed, no clear error). This is a dispositive non-motion ruling with no moving party.
“In a Report and Recommendation (‘R&R’), Magistrate Judge Steven L. Tiscione recommended that I deny the plaintiffs motion without prejudice to refile, a recommendation that I adopted on March 19, 2018.”
“Judge Tiscione issued a thorough and well-reasoned R&R recommending that I grant the plaintiffs default judgment motion and find the defendant liable for breach of the personal guarantee, enter a judgment in the amount of $142,150.92, and deny the plaintiffs requests for interest and costs without prejudice to renew. ... I adopt Judge Tiscione’s comprehensive R&R in its entirety.”
“Judge Tiscione recommends that the Court deny the motion to stay the action against the Individual Defendants because the Notice of Receivership and Stay issued by Judge Gayles does not apply to the Individual Defendants ... the Court denies Dorfman’s motion to stay”
“Judge Tiscione recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against the Individual Defendants without prejudice, and that Plaintiff be granted leave to file an amended complaint. ... the Court denies ... Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against the Individual Defendants without prejudice”
“I find that ‘the agreement reflects a reasonable compromise of disputed issues [rather] than a mere waiver of statutory rights brought about by an employer's overreaching.’ ... I therefore recommend that the settlement be approved, and the case be dismissed with prejudice.”
“I recommend that the balance of factors weighs against retaining pendent jurisdiction and Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss should be GRANTED. ... Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should therefore be granted and Defendant’s counterclaims and third-party complaint should be dismissed without prejudice.”
“As this Court has recommended declining pendent jurisdiction, this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over Defendant’s counterclaim. This Court should thus DENY Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.”
“I conclude that this Petition was not filed within six months of the Petitioner’s receipt of the Claimants’ notice of the claim. Accordingly, I respectfully recommend that the Petition be dismissed as untimely.”
“For the foregoing reasons, this Court respectfully recommends that the District Court GRANT the Motion.”
“With respect to Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, the Court recommends that Plaintiff's motion be DENIED IN FULL WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEW on all, or any, of the following four independent bases.”
“ECF No. 157 is DENIED”
“ECF No. 160 is DENIED”
“ECF No. 162 is DENIED”
“Plaintiff is entitled to $227,670.16 in attorney fees.”
“ECF No. 170 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“The motion to disqualify is denied”
“the request to reopen discovery is denied without prejudice”
“That hearing was adjourned without date rendering the request”
“For the foregoing reasons, this Court respectfully recommends that the District Court GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and dismiss all futile claims.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 6.0 days (N = 16).
- Judge Tiscione's work falls into two categories.
- Referred matters in Central Islip include FLSA and New York Labor Law wage cases, anti-piracy, telephone-consumer-protection, trust and estate, admiralty, and civil-rights disputes decided by report and recommendation.
- In consent cases, the parties authorize him to act as the final decision-maker; those matters are dominated by wage cases that settle, along with several civil-rights and employment cases tried to a jury.
- Case durations are not attributed to him because the sampled long-running consent cases were filed years before reassignment to him.
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 6 |
| Mar 2025 | 9 | 5 |
| Sep 2024 | 3 | 6 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 12 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 13 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 15 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 7 |
| Mar 2021 | 3 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 6 | 1 |
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 Tiscione: 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 Tiscione with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Tiscione, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Tiscione's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace