Mae A. D'Agostino
How Judge D'Agostino rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge D'Agostino
Mae Avila D'Agostino is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge D'Agostino received a commission on March 30, 2011.
Judge D'Agostino's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge D'Agostino, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Motion briefs may be up to 25 double-spaced pages and reply briefs up to 10.
“Memoranda of law in support of and in opposition to motions may be up to 25 pages (double-spaced), and reply memoranda may be up to 10 pages (double-spaced).”
Filing
Within seven days after removal, file and serve a signed statement with the information listed in Judge D’Agostino’s rules.
“All parties removing actions to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 shall, no later than seven (7) days after filing a notice of removal, file and serve a signed statement”
Motions
In covered civil cases, seek a pre-motion letter and conference before dismissal, summary judgment, preliminary injunction, or sanctions motions.
“A pre-motion letter and conference with the Court are required before making any of the following motions: (1) motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings; (2) motions for summary judgment; (3) motions for preliminary injunctive relief; and (4) motions for sanctions.”
Motions
Keep a pre-motion letter within three double-spaced pages; the opponent may respond within three business days.
“the moving party shall submit a letter not to exceed three pages in length, double spaced, setting forth the grounds for the anticipated motion. The opposing party may respond with a letter not to exceed three pages, double spaced within three business days of receiving the pre-motion letter.”
Motions
Do not file a covered proposed motion until the court issues an order on the pre-motion letter.
“The proposed motion shall not be filed until the Court enters an order with respect to the pre-motion letter.”
Motions
Seek prior permission to file a sur-reply by letter of no more than one page.
“Sur-replies are not permitted without prior authorization of the Court. A party wishing to file a sur-reply must submit a letter request, not to exceed one page”
Conferences
Request an adjournment or extension in writing at least 48 hours before the scheduled date.
“Requests for adjournments or extensions of time shall be in writing and shall be made at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled date.”
Sealing
Obtain prior approval before filing under seal and include a declaration of good cause or compelling reasons with a proposed confidentiality order.
“No pleadings, motions, or other documents may be filed under seal without prior authorization from the Court. The request to file a document or documents under seal shall include a declaration setting forth good cause or compelling reasons why the documents should be sealed, in addition to a proposed confidentiality order.”
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 D'Agostino decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In King v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, she remanded a removed insurance dispute after finding that the defendant had not established the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction.
“Defendant has not established the amount in controversy necessary for diversity jurisdiction.”
In Atadzhanov, D’Agostino allowed one prisoner retaliation claim to proceed but dismissed the claim against a second officer because the pleading alleged only temporal proximity, without other facts supporting retaliatory intent.
“The Court cannot discern any additional allegations that would support an inference of retaliatory animus by Defendant Marshall.”
In two immigration habeas cases resolved in one order, D’Agostino granted release after finding no evidence that the seven petitioners posed a flight or safety risk and no individualized justification for their detention.
“Respondents have not shown how Petitioners' detention furthers these goals.”
Procedural preferences
In Parson v. Farmer, she adopted Magistrate Judge Baxter’s unopposed recommendation and granted summary judgment dismissing the prisoner’s complaint.
“Magistrate Judge Baxter's March 17, 2016 Report-Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein”
In VDARE, D’Agostino treated an attempt to involve the federal court in ongoing state proceedings as a Younger abstention problem and declined leave to amend because that defect could not be cured by revised pleading.
“the defects in Plaintiff's complaint—i.e. that Plaintiff improperly seeks this Court's intervention in ongoing state court proceedings—cannot be cured with an amendment”
In Diamond Tucker, D’Agostino dismissed a property dispute for improper venue and declined to transfer it after other federal courts had already found related claims jurisdictionally barred.
“The Court finds that transfer instead of dismissal would be futile and a waste of judicial resources.”
Cautions
In Capuano v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, she dismissed the amended complaint against the state agency without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and allowed repleading.
“Plaintiff's amended complaint (Dkt. No. 38) is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and with leave to replead”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDERS that Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 23) is GRANTED; and the Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff's amended complaint (Dkt. No. 38) is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and with leave to replead;”
“ORDERS that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 31) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety”
“ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and clarification (Dkt. No. 42) is DENIED”
“ORDERS Defendants' motion in limine (Dkt. No. 116) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion in limine (Dkt. No. 123) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 73) is DENIED”
“Defendants' cross motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 81) is GRANTED”
“Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 79) is DENIED”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“Plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint (Dkt. No. 21) is GRANTED”
“Defendant's motion to set aside the amended judgment (Dkt. No. 99) is DENIED”
“Defendant Ahern's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 48) of the Court's March 15, 2018 Memorandum-Decision and Order (Dkt. No. 45) is GRANTED; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendant Ahern is hereby DISMISSED as a party”
“Plaintiff's motion to remand is GRANTED; and the Court further ORDERS that this action is REMANDED to New York State Supreme Court, Oneida County”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 23) is GRANTED”
“Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 71) is DENIED as moot”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 34) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 266 days (N = 18).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 177 days (N = 3).
The reviewed 2019 filings cover a varied civil docket, including personal-injury and product-liability disputes, consumer-finance claims, copyright, employee benefits, Social Security appeals, prisoner civil-rights and habeas matters, employment cases, and removed state enforcement actions. Several long-running environmental product-liability matters remained pending during the review period.
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 | 24 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 24 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 33 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 33 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 12 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 11 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 13 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 11 |
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 D'Agostino: 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 D'Agostino with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge D'Agostino, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge D'Agostino's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace