Andrew Borrok
How Judge Borrok decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He is comfortable dismissing a securities-fraud complaint outright where the very disclosures a plaintiff claims were concealed are, on the plaintiff's own pleading, already reflected in the offering documents.
“the complaint in this case is doomed because the very performance that Ping Identity Holding Corporation's (Ping) is alleged to have failed to disclose in its July 2020 secondary public offering (SPO) documents was in fact disclosed in such documents”
In laches-based dismissals of decades-old claims, he treats the death of every material fact witness and a party's own decades of silence in the face of an actual provenance inquiry as establishing the defense as a matter of law at the pleading stage, without needing to reach a separate limitations analysis.
“plaintiffs' lack of due diligence and unreasonable delay in bringing this action and the prejudice to defendant from plaintiffs' delay are apparent from the face of the amended complaint”
On forum non conveniens motions in cross-border commercial disputes, he weighs residency, applicable foreign law, and the location of witnesses and documents cumulatively, and treats a foreign choice-of-law and arbitration clause in the operative agreement as strong evidence the parties never expected New York to hear related non-contractual claims.
“this intentional and express choice by the parties as to non-contractual obligations (i.e., the gravamen of this lawsuit) weighs heavily when considering whether Plaintiffs should now be allowed to burden New York courts when they chose the exact opposite result when they made their deal”
Procedural preferences
He reads a lease or governing document's silence on a particular restriction (such as a change in a lessee's beneficial ownership) narrowly against the party seeking to enforce an implied restriction, declining to read new obligations into unambiguous transactional documents.
“Having failed to provide a provision in the operative Co-Op documents that transfers in ownership of the Lessee are proscribed without Board approval or otherwise that the Flip Tax shall be due upon such transfer, the court shall not rewrite one under the guise of interpretation”
On discovery disputes over privilege, he requires a concrete, documented basis (a written joint-representation agreement, an actual anticipation of litigation) before crediting a claim of attorney-client or common-interest privilege, rather than accepting a party's own after-the-fact characterization.
“Starr does not proffer an affirmation from a lawyer from A & O or Skadden describing the scope of the representation or identifying both Starr and JC Flowers as clients in the ITB transaction. Thus, the RAG Report is not protected by the attorney client privilege.”
He enforces CPLR's venue-designation requirements for arbitration-related proceedings literally, holding that a general consent-to-jurisdiction clause naming an entire state is not the same as specifying a county, and applying the statute's default venue rule against the party that drafted the ambiguous clause.
“FEI argues that the absence to specify any county means that the parties specified every single county. The argument fails as nothing more than a nuanced attempt to conflate jurisdiction and venue.”
On motions for leave to reargue or renew, he holds litigants to the rule that a new legal theory not previously raised -- even one based on the same underlying documents -- is not a proper basis for renewal, regardless of how the litigant frames a late-breaking factual development.
“these are not new facts—they are new, unsupported arguments. Worse, they are new arguments that are at odds with arguments that Mr. Ashkenazy actually made when addressing this point as part of his opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment”
Cautions
Where he finds by clear and convincing evidence that a litigant has perpetrated a fraud on the court -- misrepresenting facts to defeat a summary-judgment motion -- he is willing to impose the severe sanction of striking that party's answer entirely, on top of an adverse merits ruling.
“Having knowingly made this wholly meritless argument to this Court to needlessly elongate these proceedings, and attempting to perpetrate a fraud on the Court, striking its pleadings are warranted.”
He will hold a party in civil contempt and impose the maximum statutory fine where it willfully disobeys a prior order's unequivocal mandate, even where the disobedient party attempts to manufacture new post-hoc justifications for noncompliance.
“The Defendants have willfully and contumaciously failed to sign the PW-1 and have now attempted to fabricate new concerns ... Thus, the motion for contempt must be granted and the Defendants shall pay the maximum statutory amount of $250 for civil contempt.”
In multi-motion, multi-party commercial disputes he is comfortable issuing a single omnibus decision resolving numerous distinct motions across consolidated actions in one order, splitting outcomes motion-by-motion rather than resolving the case wholesale in one direction.
“(i) Seokoh, Inc. (Kolmar)'s motion ... is granted solely to the extent ... but is otherwise denied, (ii) Lard-PT, LLC's ... motion ... is granted, (iii) Lard's motion for summary judgment ... is denied, and (iv) Kolmar's motion ... to discontinue ... is granted solely to the extent”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“It is hereby ORDERED that the motion to dismiss the AC is granted without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that a SAC shall be filed within 30 days of the date of today's order.”
“East-West's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to CPLR § 327 (a) is granted. ... ORDERED that East-West's motion to dismiss is granted and the Amended Complaint is dismissed, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.”
“60G 133 Greene Street Owner, LLC's (60G) motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § (a)(1) and (7) is granted. ... ORDERED that 60G's motion to dismiss is granted”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR §§ 3211 (a)(1) and (a)(7) is denied with respect to the cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (second cause of action) and granted with respect to the causes of action for a declaratory judgment (fourth cause of action), violation of General Business Law § 340 (fifth cause of action), and tortious interference with business relations (sixth cause of action).”
“Martin Bloch's motion to change venue to Nassau County is granted. ... ORDERED that the motion for a change of venue is granted, and venue of this action is changed from this Court to the Supreme Court, County of Nassau”
“the court holds that there are no issues of material fact and the evidence establishes that the September 23, 2014 order of the Sao Paolo State Court ordering CIT to relinquish possession of the aircraft to Savon was the proximate cause of CIT's physical loss of the aircraft, CIT's motion for summary judgment (motion sequence No. 002) is granted”
“the Insurers' motion for summary judgment (motion sequence No. 003) is denied”
“the branch of the Moving Respondents' motion for a stay and a preliminary injunction is denied”
“the branch of their motion to seal is also denied and the Moving Respondents are directed to upload unredacted versions of their supporting papers”
“ORDERED that Mtn Seq. No. 23 and Mtn. Seq. No. 24 are granted to the extent set forth herein and Starr shall produce the documents required by this decision and order within 7 days.”
“Seokoh, Inc. (Kolmar)'s motion ... to consolidate the lawsuit ... with the Lard Lawsuit and to stay the consolidated lawsuit until the still later filed ... Delaware Dissolution Proceeding ... is granted solely to the extent that the Lard Lawsuit is consolidated into the Kolmar Lawsuit but is otherwise denied”
“Lard-PT, LLC's (Lard) motion ... for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading in the Kolmar Lawsuit which was filed on February 12, 2020 is granted”
“Lard's motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim in the Kolmar Lawsuit ... pursuant to CPLR § 3212 is denied”
“Kolmar's motion ... to discontinue the Kolmar Lawsuit without prejudice pursuant to CPLR § 3217(b) is granted solely to the extent that Kolmar's complaint filed in the Kolmar Lawsuit seeking specific performance is dismissed without prejudice”
“Lard's motion ... for a preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR §§ 2214(d), 6301, and 6313(1) is denied”
“David Wormser and Alan Wormser's (the Wormsers) motion to dismiss the Third-Party Complaint ... pursuant to CPLR §§ 3211(a)(1) and (7) and for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130.1-1 is granted to the extent that the Third-Party Complaint is dismissed but is otherwise denied”
“Lard's motion ... to dismiss the counterclaims filed in the Lard Lawsuit is denied.”
“Prada's Order to Show Cause (Mtn. Seq. No. 002) is granted in part.”
“New York University (University) and NYU Hospitals Center's (Hospitals, together with University, hereinafter, collectively, NYU) motion to dismiss (Mtn. Seq. No. 004) must be granted as to the substantive claims asserted against them. The lawsuit is not however dismissed in its entirety against NYU because NYU is a proper nominal defendant to the declaratory judgment causes of action.”
“Turner is not entitled to dismissal. The claims asserted against them are not untimely. ... For the reasons set forth below, the Plaintiffs' cross-motions for partial summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211(c) are denied.”
“the motion for leave to renew (Mtn. Seq. No. 005) is granted to the extent that the Unit Owner is granted summary judgment”
“the cross-motion to strike the Defendants' answer is granted and the Defendants' answer is struck”
“the motion to strike the complaint (Mtn. Seq. No. 006) is denied”
“Ms. Schrero's motion to strike a subpoena (Mtn. Seq. No. 007) is denied”
“the motion for contempt (Mtn. Seq. No. 008) is granted; ... the Defendants are hereby sanctioned by this Court in the amount of $250”
Put Judge Borrok's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Borrok actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Borrok's own signed orders and cites them.