James E. d'Auguste
How Judge d'Auguste decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In defamation suits over opinion journalism, he reads challenged language in the full context of its publication venue -- treating placement in an opinion section, and the absence of a close, individualized connection between the statement and the plaintiff, as often dispositive of whether the statement is actionable at all.
“the overall context in which the article was published, in the opinion section of the newspaper, signaled to the reader that 'the broader social context and surrounding circumstances [indicate] that what is being read . . . is likely to be opinion, not fact.'”
He enforces New York's Anti-SLAPP law rigorously against protracted post-enactment litigation, holding a plaintiff to the statute's 'substantial basis in law' standard rather than the older, more forgiving bare-notice pleading standard, and will find the continuation of an already-rejected legal theory itself evidence the suit is a strategic lawsuit against public participation.
“the continuation of this action after the Legislature's enactment of chapter 250 has been a veritable archetype of the strategic litigation against public participation that the Legislature intended to curb”
In a corporate-officer standing dispute, he will treat old, uncontradicted corporate resolutions as conclusively establishing an officer's authority to sue on the company's behalf, even decades later and even where the record shows no formal corporate meeting was ever held to renew the appointment.
“Plaintiff established his standing to bring claims under Business Corporation Law § 720 as an officer and director of the family companies ... Defendant failed to present any evidence to contradict the 1996 corporate resolutions”
Procedural preferences
On discovery motions, he takes a firm line against attorneys' offices attempting to relitigate procedural conditions already rejected by the Appellate Division, treating the repetition of a losing argument in a new case as itself grounds to find the position was known to be meritless.
“Baker McEvoy's attempt to essentially collaterally attack the Appellate Division's reasoning underlying its decision in Guerra by attempting to continuously ban non-attorneys from being present at a plaintiff's IME, which it has been barred from doing, borders on frivolity.”
Facing overlapping litigation in multiple forums, he will grant a broad stay under CPLR 2201/3211(a)(4) once he finds even partial overlap of parties and factual issues with a more-advanced federal action, rather than allowing parallel discovery and motion practice to proceed to judgment in his own court first.
“A stay is warranted where there is 'a substantial identity of parties,' and 'both actions arose out of the same subject matter or series of alleged wrongs.'”
On a discovery-related request to conduct an anti-SLAPP-motion discovery, he requires the party's own sworn affidavit of personal knowledge, not just counsel's affirmation, holding that the person best positioned to state what facts are needed must be the one to say so under oath.
“The person in the best position to state what information plaintiff has concerning communications between plaintiff and defendant Burke is plaintiff himself, yet plaintiff has not offered an affidavit detailing his own personal knowledge”
Cautions
He will grant plaintiffs a discretionary extension of time to serve process in the interest of justice even after an initial service attempt has lapsed, so long as the underlying claim appears potentially meritorious and would otherwise be time-barred -- a forgiving posture toward service defects that a defendant should not assume will produce an easy statute-of-limitations dismissal.
“granted the motion of plaintiffs Heike M. Vogel, Esq. and Victoria V. Bach, Esq. ... to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint by 120 days ... denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint”
When multiple related defendants move to dismiss on overlapping theories arising from an out-of-state dispute, he tends to resolve them together in a single consolidated ruling and grant dismissal plus sanctions across the board once he concludes the New York suit is itself an improper attempt to relitigate matters resolved elsewhere.
“defendants' motions seeking dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions are granted”
A full dismissal-with-prejudice of an entire complaint under CPLR 3211 has been reversed on appeal more than once as overreaching where the Appellate Division found individual causes of action -- breach of fiduciary duty, fraud predicated on a fiduciary relationship, mutual mistake -- were adequately pleaded even though the bulk of the complaint failed.
“unanimously modified, on the law, the judgment vacated, and the motion denied as to all causes of action except unjust enrichment”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Based upon the foregoing, defendants' motion is denied in its entirety.”
“The Court grants plaintiff's cross-motion to the extent that defendants have waived their opportunity for a DME based on their refusal to allow a non-attorney representative into the examination room and comply with this Court's prior orders ... plaintiff's cross-motion striking defendants' answer for failure to submit to an examination before trial is granted to the extent of conditionally striking their answer unless defendants produce witnesses for deposition within the next 90 days”
“plaintiff's cross-motion for costs and sanctions is denied”
“Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James E. d'Auguste, J.), entered September 22, 2020, dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 17, 2020, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) ... unanimously modified, on the law, the judgment vacated, and the motion denied as to all causes of action except unjust enrichment, and otherwise affirmed”
“the Operator Defendants' motion to strike is denied”
“defendants' motions seeking dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions are granted”
“this Court grants dismissal of the complaint with prejudice and denies the application for the imposition of sanctions”
“Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James D'Auguste, J.), entered on or about October 14, 2021, which granted defendant's CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion to dismiss the amended complaint ... unanimously affirmed”
“plaintiff's motion for discovery is denied”
“the branches of defendant Damian Garde's motion to dismiss this action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (g) as part of motion seq No. 003 and 004 are granted”
“the branches of ... defendant['s] ... motion to dismiss this action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (g) as part of motion seq No. 003 and 004 are granted”
“Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James E. d'Auguste, J.), entered June 5, 2024, which ... granted the motion of plaintiffs Heike M. Vogel, Esq. and Victoria V. Bach, Esq. ... to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint by 120 days ... unanimously affirmed”
“Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James E. d'Auguste, J.), entered June 5, 2024, which ... denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed”
“Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James d'Auguste, J.), entered January 13, 2025, awarding plaintiff a money judgment against defendant, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered September 10, 2024, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint on a note and guaranty ... unanimously affirmed”
“denied defendant's cross-motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4) and (5), unanimously affirmed”
“Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James E. d'Auguste, J.), entered July 15, 2025, which ... granted the motion of plaintiff Dennis Lee for summary judgment as to liability on the first through fifth causes of action in the amended complaint, for summary judgment as to the sixth cause of action for injunctive relief to set aside unlawful conveyances ... unanimously affirmed”
“denied the cross-motion of defendant Chun Ka Luk, as Administrator of the Estate of Nancy Luk for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint for a lack of standing and as barred by the statute of limitations, unanimously affirmed”
“ORDERED that this case is stayed during the pendency of Case number: 1:25-cv-08420 (AT) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY Action") and in favor of the pending arbitration before FINRA”
“Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James Edward D'Auguste, J.), entered April 30, 2020, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability ... unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendants' motion as to the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action, and otherwise affirmed”
“denied defendants' cross motion to dismiss the third through tenth causes of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 or 3212 ... unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendants' motion as to the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action”
Put Judge d'Auguste's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge d'Auguste actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge d'Auguste's own signed orders and cites them.