Anar Rathod Patel
How Judge Patel decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On sophisticated corporate-fraud claims, she takes a party's own prior sworn admissions and public statements at face value against it, holding that a complaint's own allegation of 'near universal' public knowledge of an underlying fact defeats its deceptive-omission theory built on the premise consumers didn't know that fact.
“The City cannot have it both ways.”
She applies controlling Court of Appeals precedent on in pari delicto strictly against equitable 'innocent receiver' arguments, declining to carve out a broader exception even where doing so would benefit blameless investors, because a scheme's sole corporate owner's fraud is imputed to the company as a matter of law.
“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 discovery disputes involving corporate-family defendants, she rejects a parent entity's claim that responsive materials do not exist where the record shows the parent never actually searched for them, especially once a third-party subpoena has already surfaced exactly the kind of document the parent denied having.
“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
On motions for leave to amend, she reads the 'palpably insufficient or clearly devoid of merit' standard generously toward the moving party, and treats a reasonable, fact-specific excuse for delay (such as awaiting a key deposition) as defeating an undue-prejudice argument even after discovery has effectively closed.
“Consistent with Ferrer, the Court, as a matter of law, has significant discretion in deciding whether to grant a motion to amend a complaint... the Court finds that the delay in adding the additional causes of action is reasonably excusable and, although inconvenient, not prejudicial to Defendants.”
On unopposed motions to seal commercially sensitive financial and strategic information, she grants them efficiently and by reference to her own prior sealing orders in the same case, rather than re-litigating the good-cause standard from scratch each time.
“The Court hereby references and incorporates its prior Decision and Orders on Mot. Seq. No. 004...and Mot. Seq. Nos. 008, 009, and 010...pursuant to which it granted Bluestar's and the HBN Non-Parties' respective motions to redact/seal similar information.”
On default-judgment motions, she holds movants strictly to CPLR 3215's evidentiary requirements, rejecting an attorney's affirmation alone (which she treats as devoid of evidentiary value) as insufficient proof of the underlying claim even on an unopposed cross-motion.
“Counsel's affirmation is devoid of evidentiary value and insufficient to support entry of a judgment... Defendants do not adequately state a counterclaim for breach of oral contract.”
She enforces her own case-management directives (status letters, in-person conferences) with real teeth, dismissing a party's affirmative claims with prejudice for repeated non-compliance rather than issuing further warnings.
“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
Her discovery-compulsion orders do not always survive appeal intact -- the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the substance of a broad TikTok discovery order but trimmed a specific requirement that defendants submit affidavits explaining how certain already-produced summary figures were calculated.
“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”
Some of her dismissal rulings have been reversed outright on appeal on grounds she did not need to reach below -- the Appellate Division, First Department reversed one of her orders denying dismissal, holding the case should have been dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds regardless of the merits she had addressed.
“The motion court should have dismissed this action pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens... this action should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant United Kingdom entities.”
Where a plaintiff's claims rest on a defense the court has already rejected in a related, earlier-decided case involving the same underlying fraud (collateral estoppel/law-of-the-case concerns), she will deny related discovery even where the same information might otherwise be discoverable, citing efficiency and consistency across her own related rulings.
“the Court incorporates, by reference, the factual and procedural summaries from the Decisions and Orders on Motion Sequence Numbers 003, 004, 006, 011, 012, and 019”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motions are granted and the City's complaint is dismissed in its entirety.”
“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”
Put Judge Patel's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Patel actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Patel's own signed orders and cites them.