David N. Hurd
How Judge Hurd rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hurd
David N. Hurd is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Hurd received a commission on September 22, 1999. Judge Hurd assumed senior status on December 9, 2024.
Judge Hurd's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Hurd'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 Hurd decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Croney v. Russell, Hurd adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and denied the plaintiff's pre-discovery summary-judgment motion without prejudice, allowing renewal after discovery.
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 37) is DENIED without prejudice, and with opportunity to renew upon completion of discovery”
Procedural preferences
In Burrell v. Uhler, Hurd reviewed the objected portions of the magistrate judge's recommendation anew, adopted it, and granted defense summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The resulting dismissal covered the complaint, including claims against nonmoving defendants.
“Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 127) is GRANTED; and 3. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED.”
In O’Neil v. Hamilton College, Hurd denied summary judgment after finding the college’s statement of material facts deficient and recognizing disputed facts about the accommodation process.
“defendant has failed to meet their burden under Rule 56 and their SOMF does not comply with the Local Rules in this District.”
Cautions
In Grant v. City of Syracuse, Hurd denied an eve-of-trial motion to bifurcate liability and damages. He found the excessive-force damages evidence intertwined with liability and concluded separate trials would not promote judicial economy.
“Defendants' motion to bifurcate is DENIED”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED”
“Respondent's motion to dismiss petitioner's verified petition is GRANTED; 2. Petitioner's verified petition is DISMISSED”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; and 3. Plaintiff's operative complaint is DISMISSED.”
“Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 127) is GRANTED; and 3. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 37) is DENIED without prejudice, and with opportunity to renew upon completion of discovery”
“Plaintiff's second motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 51) is DENIED”
“motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 64) is DENIED”
“The Petition, Dkt. No. 1, is DENIED AND DISMISSED in its entirety”
Initial statutory screening order in a pro se Section 1983 excessive-force action arising from an arrest. Adopting a magistrate judge's report and recommendation without objection, the court permitted the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment individual-capacity excessive-force claims to proceed against three named officers, dismissed a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim and duplicative official-capacity claims with prejudice, dismissed the remaining claims without prejudice, and gave the plaintiff thirty days to file a second amended complaint. This is a section 1915 initial-review screening order rather than a ruling on an adversarial motion; motions array left empty as zero decision-value for motion statistics.
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 26) is GRANTED;”
“The parties’ consent motion for in camera review (Dkt. No. 32) is DENIED as moot.”
“Xtreme’s motion for summary judgment will be denied”
“the Village Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be granted in part and denied in part.”
“Defendants Citibank, N.A. and CitiMortgage, Inc.’s motion to dismiss is DENIED”
“Defendants MidFirst Bank, N.A. and Firstlnsure, Inc.’s motion to dismiss is DENIED”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 365 days (N = 13).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 139 days (N = 9).
The reviewed civil docket is weighted toward Federal Tort Claims Act suits, False Claims Act matters that often ended by settlement or stipulated dismissal, prisoner civil-rights cases, diversity contract disputes, and employment or education-related civil-rights claims. Many matters proceeded through magistrate-judge referrals.
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 | 9 |
| 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 | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 9 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 12 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 18 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 17 |
| Sep 2020 | 11 | 13 |
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 Hurd: 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 Hurd with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hurd, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hurd's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace