Daniel J. Stewart
How Judge Stewart rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Stewart
Daniel J. Stewart has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of New York since 2015. Before joining the bench, he practiced at Dreyer, Boyajian LLP and Brennan & White LLP. He earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Notre Dame in 1985 and a law degree from Albany Law School in 1988.
Judge Stewart's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Stewart'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 Stewart decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Daniel J. S. v. Commissioner of Social Security, he recommended remand because the ALJ did not adequately analyze the supportability and consistency of several medical opinions; the district judge adopted the recommendation.
“Magistrate Judge Stewart determined that the ALJ’s decision did not adequately analyze the supportability and consistency of several medical opinions.”
In Moorer v. Matthie, he found a factual question about whether the grievance process was available after the prisoner was transferred to another facility soon after the alleged incident.
“Judge Stewart concluded that plaintiff’s filings raised a factual question as to exhaustion”
In Dina W. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Stewart affirmed the benefits denial and explained that the governing statutes require consideration of third-party statements but do not prescribe how an administrative law judge must articulate that consideration.
“the relevant statutes ‘require . . . that the ALJ “consider” third-party statements but do not contain any articulation requirements.’”
In Faheen M., Stewart recommended another Social Security remand because the ALJ did not explain why he omitted a medical limitation after an Appeals Council remand; the district judge adopted the recommendation.
“The ALJ makes no explicit findings regarding how Dr. Cohen’s testimony provided a basis for discounting the findings of Dr. Woogen that limited Plaintiff to very simple instructions.”
Cautions
In Morrow v. Vanderwerff, he recommended summary judgment for the defendants after finding insufficient evidence of their personal involvement in the prisoner’s removal from a work assignment.
“no reasonable factfinder could conclude that Vanderwerff or Tanea was personally involved in plaintiff’s removal from his work assignment.”
In DeVinney v. Russell, he recommended summary judgment for the defendant because the plaintiff had not exhausted administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act; the district judge adopted the recommendation.
“Magistrate Judge Stewart recommended that the Court grant the Motion because Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.”
In Guerrero v. Albany Med Health System, Judge Stewart denied a motion to compel where several requests concerned dismissed claims and the plaintiff offered no evidence that additional responsive documents were being withheld. He directed the defendant to describe its document search.
“The Court will not order ‘a party to produce that which does not exist,’ particularly where, as here, Plaintiff has not provided any ‘evidence of [D]efendant withholding . . . relevant documents it possesses’ in response to Request for Production No. 3.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-Recommendation in its entirety and denies Defendants' motions to dismiss, and the Court affirms Magistrate Judge Stewart's Order granting the Government's Application for a Prejudgment Writ of Attachment in the amount of $875,000.00”
“ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. No. 11, is GRANTED ... the Commissioner's final decision is REVERSED and REMANDED”
“ORDERS that the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. No. 15, is DENIED”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; and 3. Plaintiff's operative complaint is DISMISSED.”
“ORDERED that the Petition (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability not issue”
“ORDERS that Defendants' motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 18, is GRANTED; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk shall enter judgment in Defendant's favor and close this case”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and partial motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 27) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; ... Plaintiff’s § 1983 conspiracy claims against defendants Matthie, Rushlow, and Ramie are DISMISSED”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds is DENIED”
“ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. No. 61) is DENIED as set forth above”
“ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED”
“ORDERED, that Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED”
“ORDERED, that that the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 35) is DENIED”
“ORDERED, that the Motion for a Default Judgment (Dkt. No. 23) is DENIED”
“The request for the appointment of counsel is denied.”
“Harp, Dkt. No. 47, and so these motions are moot.”
“RECOMMENDED, that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 15) be GRANTED;”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Stewart's sampled civil docket is dominated by Social Security disability appeals, alongside criminal-duty matters involving complaints and applications for tax or search records. The duration figures cover twelve terminated Social Security cases filed in 2020 and measure filing to termination, not the time taken to decide a motion.
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 3 |
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 Stewart: 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 Stewart with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Stewart, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Stewart's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace