Andrea Masley
How Judge Masley rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Masley
Andrea Masley was elected to the New York State Supreme Court in 2016 and joined its New York County Commercial Division in 2017. She previously served on the New York City Civil Court and, for a time, in Family Court. Before taking the bench, she worked as a principal court attorney for New York Supreme Court justices and earned her law degree from Fordham University School of Law.
Judge Masley's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Masley, 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
Email communications to both Part 48 and the Part Clerk, copying all counsel.
“All communication with Part 48 shall be sent by email, copying all counsel, to both Part 48 ( sfc- [email protected]) and the Part Clerk ([email protected]).”
Filing
File all Part 48 submissions electronically in NYSCEF.
“All submissions to Part 48 shall be filed electronically in NYSCEF;”
Motions
Summary judgment motions may not be filed before a pre-motion conference.
“Summary judgment motions may not be filed prior to a pre-motion conference.”
Conferences
Send a letter identifying issues 72 hours before a conference, limited to 1,500 words.
“The parties shall submit a letter identifying discovery or other issue(s) 72 hours prior to the conference. Letters shall be no more than 1,500 words.”
How Judge Masley decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Chao Jiang v. Ping An Insurance, she held that Chubb's excess coverage did not attach until the underlying primary policy limits had been exhausted by payment, rather than by unpaid costs that exceeded those limits.
“Affording the language employed in the policies their plain meaning, Chubb's obligation to provide excess coverage does not attach until all underlying primary policy limits have been exhausted by payment of a claim or claims, riot by incurring costs or expenses that may exceed primary policy limits but have not yet been paid.”
In Huntsman International, LLC v. Albemarle Corp., she held that fraud claims sharing the same factual predicate as the contract claims had to be arbitrated.
“The balance of Huntsman's fraud claims, which share the same factual predicate as the breach of contract claims, go to the heart of the transaction: the material misrepresentations giving rise to the underlying transaction. They must also be arbitrated”
In Wong v. New York City Employees' Retirement System, she applied Thole's reasoning to find that the defined-benefit-plan plaintiffs had not suffered a monetary loss from the challenged investment decisions.
“Just like the plaintiffs in Thole, plaintiffs here have not, and will not, suffer any monetary losses based upon defendants' investment decisions.”
In Cattan, Masley granted a forum non conveniens dismissal of derivative claims brought for a Swiss bank. The Appellate Division affirmed and explained that the alleged injury and company operations centered on Switzerland despite the plaintiff’s New York residence.
“which granted the motion of defendants Michael Klein, Timothy P. O'Hara, Robert S. Shafir, Pamela A. Thomas-Graham, Sean T. Brady, Robert Jain, Philip Vasan, Credit Suisse Group AG (Credit Suisse), Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse (USA), Inc., and Credit Suisse Holdings (USA), Inc., to dismiss the amended complaint as against them based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, unanimously affirmed, with costs.”
Procedural preferences
In 1234 Broadway LLC v. Caroline K., she denied a summary-judgment request without prejudice because no answer had been filed and the motion was premature.
“That branch of Ms. K.'s motion seeking summary judgment is denied without prejudice. Without an answer, the motion is premature.”
In Guberman v. West, Judge Masley declined to redact the parties' phone numbers because the applicants offered only a general desire for privacy, which did not establish good cause to seal the court record.
“Good cause does not exist to redact the parties' phone numbers. Neither Guberman, nor West, articulates in an affidavit any reason to seal this information other than a general desire for privacy. This general desire for privacy does not constitute good cause to seal court records.”
In Dantzig v. ORIX AM Holdings, LLC, she imposed a limited adverse inference for destroyed electronic messages after finding that the plaintiff had not shown the loss deprived him of a means to establish a prima facie case.
“the most appropriate sanction here, as proposed by Dantzig, is an adverse inference that the destroyed ESI would not contradict Dantzig's evidence at trial. The motion is granted to the extent set forth above.”
In Point 128’s operating-agreement dispute, Masley read the undefined term “withdraw” as unambiguous, covering transfer, sale, or other disposition. She added that an alternative ambiguity would also be unfit for resolution on a motion to dismiss, and she denied dismissal of the breach-of-contract claim.
“While the court deems § 3.3 unambiguous on its face, the lack of a definition for the term ‘withdraw’ would otherwise create an ambiguity and render this prong of defendants’ motion unfit for disposition on a motion to dismiss.”
Cautions
In AT&T Mobility Holdings B.V. v. Grupo Salinas Telecom, Masley authorized a receiver to review defined categories of the judgment debtors' former counsel's files, including privileged materials, to collect the judgment. The First Department affirmed that order.
“We agree with the motion court that the receiver has presented a valid basis for reviewing a precisely defined list of materials in defendants' former counsel's files, including those subject to attorney-client privilege”
In Pala Assets Holdings Ltd. v. Rolta, LLC, Judge Masley held nonparty corporate officer Preetha Pulusani in civil contempt and imposed a $1.13 million fine for assisting violation of a turnover order; the Appellate Division later narrowed joint liability.
“Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Andrea Masley, J.), entered December 21, 2021, which granted plaintiffs' motion for contempt and held nonparty Preetha Pulusani in civil contempt, fined her $1.13 million”
In Continental Industries Group, Inc. v. Ustuntas, she awarded fees and imposed a separate $10,000 sanction after the plaintiff repeatedly claimed a responsive server was unavailable even though it remained in its possession.
“Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Andrea Masley, J.), entered May 8, 2022, which awarded defendants $25,895.10 in attorneys' fees and costs, and sanctioned plaintiff in the amount of $10,000”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the motion of defendants Federal Insurance Company and Chubb Insurance (China) Company Limited to dismiss the complaint as to defendant Federal Insurance Company is GRANTED, with prejudice”
“the motion of defendants Federal Insurance Company and Chubb Insurance (China) Company Limited to dismiss the complaint as to defendant Chubb Insurance (China) Company Limited with respect to plaintiff's cause of action for breach of contract is granted, without prejudice”
“This motion is denied as redundant of motion 08 which was held in abeyance pending a hearing on plaintiff's standing.”
“the Albemarle Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and to stay this action is granted”
“the Individual Defendants may join the arbitration”
“defendant, his agents, servants, employees and all other persons ... are enjoined and restrained, during the pendency of this action ... from using, disclosing, or transferring Eastmore's algorithms”
“the cross-motion of defendant Suman Gunta to dismiss the complaint is granted insofar as only the third cause of action for disgorgement of the complaint is dismissed”
“the most appropriate sanction here, as proposed by Dantzig, is an adverse inference that the destroyed ESI would not contradict Dantzig's evidence at trial. The motion is granted to the extent set forth above.”
“defendants Law Offices of Bart J. Eagle PLLC, Fischer Porter Thomas & Reinfeld, P.C., and Joel Reinfeld, Esq.'s motion to dismiss the complaint herein is granted and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety as against these defendants”
“Ms. K.'s motion to vacate is granted and the order and judgment are vacated. Ms. K. is directed to file an answer.”
“That branch of Ms. K.'s motion seeking summary judgment is denied without prejudice. Without an answer, the motion is premature.”
“defendants Reset Partners, LLC, Mostly Dune Holdings, LLC and Jason Liebman's motion for leave to reargue certain portions of this court's August 9, 2019 decision and order is denied”
“plaintiff JHAC LLC's cross motion for leave to reargue is denied”
“defendants Reset Partners, LLC, Mostly Dune Holdings, LLC and Jason Liebman's motion for leave to reargue certain portions of this court's August 9, 2019 decision and order is denied”
“plaintiff Vincent V Hodes Family Irrevocable Trust's cross motion for leave to reargue is denied”
“plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted as to their cause of action for breach of contract”
“plaintiffs' motion is denied as to their cause of action for unjust enrichment, and that claim is dismissed”
“Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Andrea Masley, J.), entered December 21, 2021, which granted plaintiffs' motion for contempt and held nonparty Preetha Pulusani in civil contempt, fined her $1.13 million ... unanimously modified, on the law, to strike the parts of the order holding defendants jointly and severally liable and requiring production of the communications, and otherwise affirmed”
“Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Andrea Masley, J.), entered on or about July 18, 2024, directing the turnover of assets pursuant to CPLR 5225 (a), and appointing a receiver pursuant to CPLR 5228 (a), unanimously affirmed, with costs.”
Draft for Judge Masley with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Masley, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Masley's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace