Anar Rathod Patel
How Judge Patel rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Patel
Anar Rathod Patel has served as an acting justice of the New York State Supreme Court since her appointment to the Court of Claims in June 2022. She joined the New York County Commercial Division in March 2024. Before her appointment, she practiced complex commercial litigation at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and earned degrees from Cornell University and Northwestern University School of Law.
Judge Patel's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Patel, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Contacting chambers
File written communications on NYSCEF and simultaneously deliver copies to all counsel or unrepresented parties.
“All communications with the Court shall be in writing and filed on NYSCEF, with copies simultaneously delivered to all counsel or self-represented parties.”
Filing
Working copies are unnecessary unless the court specifically requests them.
“Absent a specific request, the Court does not require working copies of documents.”
Motions
A motion generally requires a NYSCEF letter requesting a pre-motion conference, limited to two pages.
“any party seeking to make a motion, except as allowed by Rule 24, must file a written letter request for a pre-motion conference, on notice to all other parties, on NYSCEF. The letter request should state the basis of the anticipated motion and may not exceed two (2) pages.”
Conferences
Appearance adjournments must be requested in writing at least 48 hours beforehand, on notice, and filed on NYSCEF.
“A request for an adjournment of an appearance shall be made in writing at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the appearance on notice to the other parties and filed on NYSCEF.”
How Judge Patel decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the City’s consumer-deception suit, Patel treated its own allegation of broad public awareness of the climate effects of fossil fuels as undercutting a theory that consumers were misled by nondisclosure of that connection.
“The City cannot have it both ways”
In Castleman v. Interactive Brokers LLC, she dismissed the receiver's claims with prejudice under in pari delicto because Alexandre's fraudulent conduct was imputed to EminiFX.
“IBKR's motion to dismiss must be granted with prejudice where the doctrine of in pari delicto bars Plaintiff's claims because Alexandre's fraudulent actions are imputed to EminiFX as a matter of law.”
In People v. TikTok Inc., Patel rejected the defendants' claim that searching ByteDance Ltd.'s board materials would be futile. They had not searched those materials, and a third-party subpoena had produced two relevant board presentations.
“Defendants’ representation that any collection and review of Board materials from Defendant ByteDance Ltd. would be futile is entirely confounding to this Court.”
Procedural preferences
In SC Philips Clark, a hotel profit participation dispute, Patel granted leave to add claims after finding the delay reasonably excusable, without prejudice to the defendants, and the proposed allegations neither palpably insufficient nor clearly devoid of merit.
“The Court finds the allegations in the PAC are neither ‘palpably insufficient’ or ‘clearly devoid of merit,’ and therefore, GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to File the Amended Complaint.”
In ET JV Holdings, LLC v. TBH-ASL BSA Member LLC, she granted Bluestar's motion to seal and incorporated her earlier sealing decisions in the same case.
“ORDERED that Bluestar's Motion to Seal (Mot. Seq. No. 011) is GRANTED in accordance with 22 NYCRR § 216.1(a)”
In Ahmed v. Ahmed, she denied the defendants' cross-motion for default judgment on an oral-contract counterclaim, with leave to renew, because counsel's affirmation lacked evidentiary value and did not adequately establish the claim.
“ORDERED that Defendants' Cross-Motion for Default Judgment against Plaintiff is denied with leave to renew on or before October 8, 2025”
In Ahmed v. Ahmed, she dismissed the plaintiff's claims and denied the plaintiff's default-judgment motion with prejudice after the August 28, 2025 appearance.
“Accordingly, and pursuant to the reasons set forth on the record at the August 28, 2025 appearance, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims in this action and denies Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Saleh Saleh with prejudice.”
Cautions
In People v. TikTok Inc., the Appellate Division modified Judge Patel's discovery order to remove a requirement for affidavits explaining how certain summary figures were calculated, while otherwise affirming the order.
“unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the requirement that defendants produce 'affidavit(s) from individual(s) with firsthand knowledge that describes the database sources, and productions (both to date and as directed herein), how the figures are calculated...' and otherwise affirmed”
In Lash v. TDR Capital LLP, the Appellate Division reversed her order denying dismissal and granted the motion, holding that forum non conveniens and lack of personal jurisdiction over the United Kingdom entities required dismissal.
“Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anar Rathod Patel, J.), entered May 1, 2025, which denied defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law without costs, and the motion granted.”
In Leinhardt, the Appellate Division reversed the appealed portion of Patel’s order that had allowed the remaining fraud claims against the Socure defendants and denied their fee request. It dismissed the complaint and remanded for calculation of fees.
“Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anar Rathod Patel, J.), entered September 29, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion of defendants Socure, Inc., Sunil Madhu, and Johnny Ayers to dismiss the first four causes of action of the complaint (the fraud claims) pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), (5), and (7) and 3016 (b), and for fees and expenses including reasonable attorneys' fees, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion granted, the complaint dismissed, and the matter remanded for calculation of defendants' reasonable attorneys' fees.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“motion to dismiss the complaint by defendants ExxonMobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation (mot seq No. 007) is granted”
“motion to dismiss the complaint by Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Shell Oil Company (mot seq No. 008) is granted”
“motion to dismiss the complaint by defendants BP p.l.c. and BP America Inc. (mot seq No. 009) is granted”
“the Court grants Plaintiff's motion as to liability and the aggregate principal amount, and directs an inquest as to an award of interest. The Court denies Plaintiff's application for attorney's fees.”
“ORDERED that the portion of Motion Sequence 002 seeking to dismiss Counts I, III, and V as against Defendant TKS Holding is GRANTED and the complaint is dismissed as against Defendant TKS Holding”
“ORDERED that Motion Sequence 003 is DENIED in its entirety”
“ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied in its entirety.”
“Based on the foregoing, Defendants have failed to establish sufficient cause to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint as to any party. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(7) is denied in its entirety.”
“ORDERED that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(7) is GRANTED as to Count II (fraud), Count III (tortious interference with a contract), Count IV (tortious interference with economic advantage), and Count V (civil conspiracy) of the Amended Complaint”
“ORDERED that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(7) is DENIED as to Count I (breach of contract) against Defendants E. Armada Inc. and Anthony Manuel Concepcion of the Amended Complaint”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Saleh Saleh is denied with prejudice”
“ORDERED that Defendants' Cross-Motion for Default Judgment against Plaintiff is denied with leave to renew on or before October 8, 2025”
“the Court finds that it is improper to sanction Counselor McGowan at this time.”
“Defendants' Cross-Motion seeking sanctions against Plaintiff is DENIED in its entirety.”
“for Defendants' contempt of the aforementioned Orders...is GRANTED and Defendants are found to be in civil contempt of the aforementioned Orders”
“ORDERED that Defendant Rose Associates, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (Mot. Seq. No. 015) is GRANTED in part insofar as Plaintiff's causes of action sounding in: (1) breach of the Offering Plan and the provisions thereto (Counts I and IV); and (2) aiding and abetting fraud (Count III) are dismissed as against Defendant Rose Associates, Inc.”
“ORDERED that Defendant Rose Associates, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (Mot. Seq. No. 015) is DENIED in part insofar as Plaintiff's causes of action sounding in: (1) fraud; and (2) breach of the management agreement survive as against Defendant Rose Associates, Inc.”
“ORDERED that Defendant Benson Industries, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Mot. Seq. No. 012) is DENIED in its entirety”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion seeking leave to amend the Second Amended Complaint herein (Mot. Seq. No. 019) is GRANTED, and the Third Amended Complaint in the proposed form annexed to the moving papers shall be deemed served”
“Defendants' TikTok Inc., TikTok, LLC...Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is granted in part and denied in part. The Motion is denied as to the dismissal of Counts I-IX; however, the Court strikes the portions of the Complaint asserting allegations that Defendants misrepresented their compliance with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act”
Draft for Judge Patel with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Patel, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Patel's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace