Gretchen Walsh
How Judge Walsh rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Walsh
Gretchen Walsh is a justice of the New York State Supreme Court in Westchester County, where she hears Commercial Division and other civil matters. She was elected in 2015 and was appointed to the Appellate Term for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts in 2022. Before taking the bench, she served as a principal court attorney in the state court system.
Judge Walsh's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Walsh, 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
Filing
For matters on submission only, deliver working copies to chambers by the return or settlement date.
“For matters on submission only, working copies of all documents, except stipulations to be so-ordered, are to be mailed or hand delivered so as to be received by Chambers by the return date or notice of settlement date.”
Motions
Motions generally require a pre-motion conference.
“No motion shall be made, except as allowed by Rule 24 of the Commercial Division Rules, without a pre- motion conference with the Court.”
Conferences
Submit scheduling and adjournment questions to the Senior Court Clerk by NYSCEF letter and email.
“All questions about scheduling appearances or adjournments should be addressed to the Senior Court Clerk, Thompson Crozier, by letter correspondence uploaded to NYSCEF and emailed to the Senior Court Clerk at [email protected].”
Conferences
Request adjournment of a weekly Commercial Division calendar matter by noon the preceding day.
“All requests for adjournment of matters appearing on the weekly Commercial Division Calendar should be made by no later than 12:00 noon of the date preceding the scheduled date.”
How Judge Walsh decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In GCM Prime LLC v. Keizer Mist Operations, LLC, she granted an unopposed CPLR 3213 motion after the plaintiff documented service, the settlement agreement, and the defendant's failure to pay.
“Plaintiff has met its prima facie burden by: (1) demonstrating that Defendants were served ...; (2) establishing the existence of the Settlement Agreement, which is an instrument for the payment of money only ...; and (3) establishing Defendant's failure to make the requisite payment due”
In Elghanian-Halperin v. Dimon, she declined to second-guess the board's decision not to sue because the plaintiff had not shown gross negligence, bad faith, or a decision no reasonable board would make.
“Neither Plaintiff nor the Court is permitted to second-guess the Board's decision. Plaintiff has not proffered any basis for the Court to conclude that, under these circumstances, no reasonable board would forgo the opportunity to file suit or that the Board's decision to do so was grossly negligent or made in bad faith.”
In Blue Elephant Specialty Finance Fund, LP v. Gaspard & Menon Construction, LLC, she found triable issues over whether the purchase agreement was a loan after examining its lack of reconciliation, finite term, and bankruptcy recourse.
“there is no provision in the Purchase Agreement for reconciliation ... the Purchase Agreement had a finite term of two years ... it appears that Plaintiff was given some recourse in the event of Seller's bankruptcy. ... Based on the foregoing, there are triable issues of fact over whether the Purchase Agreement was a loan and not a valid cash advance agreement”
In A&J Sprinkler Systems, Inc. v. 5 Harvest Drive LLC, she treated the plaintiff's lack of a license in its own name as a harmless technical violation and declined to dismiss the complaint.
“A&J not being licensed in its own name is a technical and harmless violation of the Code, and 'forfeiture of the right to be paid for work done is an excessive penalty' for such a violation ... To dismiss the Complaint under these facts would be to put form over substance of the Code's licensing requirement.”
In Mantis Funding LLC v. Dayton Car Care of Ohio LLC, she found repayment under the agreement was not absolute because it provided for reconciliation, had an indefinite term, and did not make bankruptcy an event of default.
“A review of the Agreement's provisions make clear that repayment was not absolute. The agreement contained a reconciliation provision, was of indefinite term and does not provide that a bankruptcy filing is an event of default.”
Procedural preferences
In Grossbach, Grossbach, Tramaglini & Hayes, P.C. v. Tovar, she denied default judgment because the plaintiff's proof was insufficient and it had not shown service of the required attorney-fee-arbitration notice.
“Plaintiff has not submitted sufficient proof demonstrating its entitlement to default judgment against Defendant ... the Court notes that Plaintiff has also not demonstrated that the requisite Notice of Client's Right to Arbitrate a Dispute Over Attorney's Fees had been properly served on Defendant”
In Wong v. Pragad, she stayed the state action until the federal court decided a pending dismissal motion, citing the risk of inconsistent adjudications and wasted resources.
“a court has broad discretion to grant a stay in order to avoid the risk of inconsistent adjudications, application of proof and potential waste of judicial resources ... the Court shall issue a stay in this action until the federal court decides the motion to dismiss”
Cautions
In Loconte Family LLC v. Keyway Pride Ltd. LLC, Judge Walsh declined to exclude the plaintiff's expert report before trial, leaving the jury to assess the challenged damages methodology in the first instance.
“the Court would potentially have an opportunity to weigh-in on the damages awarded, the Court shall not preclude Plaintiff's use of the Smith Report at trial by usurping the jury's function in the first instance.”
In A&J Sprinkler Systems, Inc. v. 5 Harvest Drive LLC, she found that forfeiting payment for work performed would be an excessive penalty for the plaintiff's technical licensing violation.
“forfeiture of the right to be paid for work done is an excessive penalty for such a violation”
In Blue Elephant Specialty Finance Fund, LP v. Gaspard & Menon Construction, LLC, she found that Menon's guaranty waiver did not cover a criminal-usury defense or a general challenge to the note's validity.
“A review of the specific defenses that Menon waived does not include an agreement to waive a criminal usury defense or even a general defense concerning the lack of validity or enforceability of the Note.”
In Mantis Funding LLC v. Dayton Car Care of Ohio LLC, Judge Walsh enforced the receivables agreement but denied blocked and default fees because she found them to be unenforceable penalties.
“the Court agrees with Defendants that the Blocked Fee and Default Fee are unenforceable penalties.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the branches of the motion seeking the dismissal of the First and Second Causes of Action is denied”
“the branch of the motion seeking the dismissal of the Third Cause of Action is granted.”
“the motion by Equity Risk Partners, Inc. to reargue this Court's April 6, 2018 Decision is denied”
“the motion by Plaintiffs Fox Paine & Company LLC and Saul Fox to strike and/or dismiss the 8th, 9th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 16th and 17th Affirmative Defenses and the Counterclaims from ERP's Answer to the Third Amended Complaint is denied”
“the branch of the motion seeking to dismiss the Third Cause of Action as against Ethos Auto Body LLC is granted but in all other respects, Defendants' motion is denied”
“The Court does not view Defendants' motion to dismiss as constituting 'frivolous' conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR S 130-1.1 ... the Court shall decline to exercise its discretion to impose any sanction.”
“Defendants' motion shall be granted.”
“the motion by Nominal Defendant JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Individual Defendants ... to dismiss the Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint ... is granted; and it is further ordered that ... each of the Causes of Action ... shall be and hereby are dismissed.”
“the motion by Defendant for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part; and it is further ORDERED that the Fourth Cause of Action (to the extent it asserts a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing) and Fifth Cause of Action are dismissed”
“in all other respects Defendants' motion is denied”
“Defendants' motion shall be granted. ... the Second Cause of Action and the Third Cause of Action of the Second Amended Complaint are dismissed.”
“Plaintiff's motion shall be denied without prejudice and with leave to renew.”
“the motion by Plaintiff for an order granting it summary judgment in lieu of complaint is granted to the extent that Plaintiff is awarded summary judgment against Defendant in the principal amount of $100,000.00”
“the Court shall issue a stay in this action until the federal court decides the motion to dismiss before it that Defendant filed on August 28, 2025”
Draft for Judge Walsh with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Walsh, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Walsh's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace