Kevin Thomas Duffy
How Judge Duffy rules, drawn from 5 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Duffy no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Duffy
Kevin Thomas Duffy was a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appointed by President Richard M. Nixon, Judge Duffy received a commission on October 17, 1972. Judge Duffy assumed senior status on January 10, 1998 and retired on September 30, 2016.
How Judge Duffy decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In First Investors Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Judge Duffy denied the policyholder's partial summary judgment motion on the insurer's duty to defend securities fraud suits because the underlying claims fell outside the policy's liability coverage.
“First Investors' partial summary judgment motion regarding Liberty Mutual's duty to defend is denied, rendering any review of the other two motions moot.”
In Calzerano v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, he granted summary judgment against a due process challenge because the pension applicant and his doctor could submit written evidence; he held that an oral hearing was not constitutionally required in that case.
“Due Process does not guarantee an opportunity to be heard in person.”
Procedural preferences
In First Investors Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Judge Duffy declined to deem the movant's Local Rule 3(g) facts admitted despite the opponent's deficient response, citing the submissions as a whole and the prejudice that would result from counsel's shortcomings.
“Due to the volume and sufficiency of the submissions as a whole and the unfair prejudice that would be inflicted upon Liberty Mutual due to its counsel's deficiencies, the material facts set forth in First Investors' Local Rule 3(g) statement are not deemed admitted.”
Cautions
In Lloyd v. WABC-TV, he ruled that five older discrimination incidents fell outside the 300-day Title VII filing window and rejected a continuing-violation theory because the plaintiff had not shown that the promotion denials were related.
“Therefore any acts of discrimination which Defendants allegedly committed in violation of Plaintiffs rights prior to December 27, 1991 are untimely and may no longer be pursued under Title VII.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the following reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendants' motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens is also granted. Plaintiffs cross-motion is granted as to the first claim and denied as to the second claim.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens is also granted.”
“Plaintiffs cross-motion is granted as to the first claim and denied as to the second claim.”
“On January 18, 1994, Defendants brought the present motion for summary judgment in favor of Defendants and for the dismissal of Plaintiffs Title VII claims. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is granted.”
“Before the court is Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.”
“Pending before this Court are three motions -- First Investors' partial summary judgment motion on Liberty Mutual's duty to defend; ... For the following reasons, First Investors' partial summary judgment motion regarding Liberty Mutual's duty to defend is denied, rendering any review of the other two motions moot.”
“First Investors' partial summary judgment motion regarding Liberty Mutual's duty to defend is denied, rendering any review of the other two motions moot.”
“The parties have cross-moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is granted and Plaintiffs motion is denied.”
“For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is granted and Plaintiffs motion is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1075.5 days (N = 10).
The nature-of-suit mix skews to civil rights and securities. The durations are raw filed-to-terminated spans presented as caseload context only: see the reassignment caveat: at least one (Byrnes) and likely several of the 2008-2009 civil-rights cases were another judge's docket reassigned to him near the end, so they are not a measure of how long he himself took to resolve cases.
A historical record
Judge Duffy no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.