Anthony J. Brindisi
How Judge Brindisi rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Brindisi
Anthony Joseph Brindisi is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Brindisi received a commission on December 9, 2024.
Judge Brindisi's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Brindisi's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 9, 2026).
- General Order 14: Civil RICO Statement ↗
- General Order 15: Uniform Procedure for Civil and Criminal Forfeiture Cases ↗
- General Order 18: Social Security Docket Assignment, Management, and Filing Requirements ↗
- General Order 22: Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing ↗
- General Order 25: Civil Case Assignment and Filing Order ↗
- General Order 47: Mandatory Mediation Program ↗
- General Order 52: Letters Regarding Sentencings ↗
- General Order 62: Procedures for Filing, Service and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
How Judge Brindisi decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a law firm’s challenge to an airport advertising decision, Judge Brindisi found the refusal viewpoint based and unreasonable, granted preliminary relief, and sought further briefing on its precise form.
“The Authority’s refusal to display the ad was viewpoint-based and unreasonable.”
Procedural preferences
In a trademark suit, he allowed limited discovery into the defendants’ New York business activity despite the complaint’s insufficient initial showing of personal jurisdiction.
“Although the allegations in the Amended Complaint and declarations do not make out a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, there is reason to believe that one or both of defendants transact at least some business within New York.”
Cautions
In a medical malpractice suit, he granted summary judgment after finding the expert’s causation theory depended on several unproven steps the decedent would have taken to enter and remain in voluntary treatment.
“Dr. Kalash’s causation opinion requires a series of additional assumptions: decedent would have agreed to this course of voluntary treatment, contacted the facility that very day, traveled there herself, chosen to be admitted, and stayed long enough to engage in sufficient treatment that would have prevented her suicide.”
In an employment discrimination suit, he held that disagreement with the district’s educational choices, standing alone, did not create a jury question about whether its budget explanation was pretextual.
“But here, standing alone, it does not suffice to create a jury question on this claim.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 64) is GRANTED; and ... Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 13) is GRANTED; and ... Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice”
Pro se civil-rights suit against a county sheriff. After Magistrate Judge Lovric denied an incomplete in-forma-pauperis application and repeated show-cause orders and mailings were returned undeliverable (plaintiff did not keep a current address or pay the fee), Lovric recommended sua sponte dismissal under Rule 41(b) (or alternatively as frivolous). No objections were filed; Judge Brindisi adopted the recommendation for clear error and dismissed the complaint under Rule 41(b), agreeing that a lesser sanction would be futile. The order resolved no pending party motion and is recorded as a procedural disposition. It is one of Brindisi's earliest signed orders, issued one month after his December 2024 commission.
“The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 87) is ACCEPTED; 2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 68) is GRANTED; and 3. Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“IT IS ORDERED that 1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 58) is GRANTED. ... 3. Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Defendant's request for attorney's fees (Dkt. No. 69) is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that 1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 31) is GRANTED; and 2. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“IT IS ORDERED that 1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 53) is GRANTED; 2. Plaintiff's federal claims are DISMISSED with prejudice; and 3. Plaintiff's state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Amended Petition, Dkt. No. 9, be DENIED and DISMISSED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that no Certificate of Appealability (‘COA’) shall issue because Petitioner has failed to make a ‘substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right’”
“It is ORDERED that the Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 12) is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. The Commissioner's motion is DENIED. The Commissioner's final decision is VACATED. This matter is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)”
“IT IS ORDERED that 1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 63) is GRANTED; 2. Plaintiff's letter motion for assignment of counsel (Dkt. No. 67) is DENIED; and 3. Plaintiff's amended complaint (Dkt. No. 41) is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's letter motion for assignment of counsel (Dkt. No. 67) is DENIED”
“IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that 1. Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 15) is GRANTED in part; and 2. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“It is ORDERED that the Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 31) is ACCEPTED; Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 24) is GRANTED; and plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Brindisi inherited a docket heavily weighted toward self-represented prisoner civil-rights cases, along with habeas, employment, federal medical-malpractice, and diversity personal-injury matters.
- Several inherited cases ended quickly through initial screening.
- Cases filed during his own tenure include municipal civil-rights and land-use disputes, trademark and consumer-communications claims, and employment litigation, indicating a broader mix as his docket develops.
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 | 21 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 21 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 15 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 7 |
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 Northern District of New York, not for Judge Brindisi: 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 | 1,302 | 8.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 227 | 4.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 796 | 7.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 267 | 17.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 12 | 53.8 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,302 | 8.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,393 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,249 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,444 | 12 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,120 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,195 | 8.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,187 | 9 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 Brindisi with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Brindisi, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Brindisi's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace