Jerome C. Murphy
How Judge Murphy rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Murphy
Jerome C. Murphy has served as a New York Supreme Court justice in the Tenth Judicial District since 2012 and hears Commercial Division matters in Nassau County. Before joining the bench, he practiced as a trial attorney and served as a village justice in Island Park. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and Brooklyn Law School.
Judge Murphy's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Murphy, 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
Motions
Provide working copies of motions, orders to show cause, responses, replies, and exhibits by the motion return date.
“Working Copies of all orders to show cause, motions, opposition, and reply papers, along with all attached exhibits, shall be provided to the court on or before the return date of the motion.”
Motions
File a NYSCEF letter confirming a motion adjournment and email a copy to the Part Clerk and chambers.
“The court requires the filing, via NYSCEF, of a letter, with a copy emailed to the Part Clerk and chambers, confirming the adjourned date,”
Discovery
Submit a letter of no more than three single-spaced pages to raise a disclosure dispute; the other side has five days to respond.
“party with a disclosure dispute shall write a letter to the Part, with a maximum of 3 single-spaced pages, outlining with specificity the issue(s) presented. The other side may submit a specific response of equal length, within 5 days of the date of the original letter.”
Conferences
The preliminary conference may not be adjourned more than once or more than 30 days without good cause.
“Preliminary Conference may not be adjourned, except for good cause, more than once or for more than 30 days.”
How Judge Murphy decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Dalton v. North Ritz Club, Judge Murphy rejected a trip-and-fall claim after comparing the object at issue with curbs, dividers, and chair legs that courts had found nonhazardous.
“If this were sufficient to raise a factual question of fact, the myriad of cases cited by defendants in which individuals tripped and fell over curbs, parking lot dividers, tree stumps, concrete wheel stop or chair leg, would seemingly fall into the same category. Yet, as cited by defendants... they have been judicially determined not to constitute hazardous conditions.”
In Kober v. Nestampower, he held that the plaintiffs had not become LLC members through an assignment because the operating agreement did not override the statutory rule limiting an assignee to economic rights.
“It is clear from the forgoing that plaintiffs never became members of KGN, as there is no provision in the Operating Agreement which contradicts the language of Section 603(a)(3) that 'the only effect of an assignment of a membership interest is to entitle the assignee to receive, to the extent assigned, the distributions and allocations of profits and losses to which the assignor would be entitled.'”
In Aaronson v. SN Funding, LLC, Judge Murphy rejected a narrow reading of a settlement release because it would make an operative release clause meaningless.
“plaintiff's interpretation of the agreement as having released no claims against Lasry renders Section 2(b) of the Mutual Release and Confidential Settlement Agreement meaningless which would run afoul of contract principles.”
Procedural preferences
In Brookhill Holdings Series ALLC v. 6 W. Court Corp., Judge Murphy denied a lender's CPLR 3213 motion because the loan agreement did not establish within its four corners when payment was due.
“the evidence submitted by plaintiff does not establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law since it is necessary to look outside of the four corners of the loan agreement to determine when and if money is owed to it”
In Parizat v. Meron, he ordered production of tax returns and related Forms 1099 because they were needed to examine Ovadia's relationship with ION Tech and the information was unavailable from other sources.
“additional information concerning the question of Ovadia's relationship with ION Tech can only be gleaned from the disclosure of those tax returns and the corresponding Form 1099's issued and plaintiff has demonstrated that it requires this tax information, which cannot be obtained from other sources”
In Alleon Capital Partners, LLC v. Choudhry, he denied reargument after finding that the movants repeated their earlier argument and that the loan's net proceeds did not affect the interest calculation.
“This is precisely the same argument made in their earlier motion... The net proceeds received from the loan are not relevant to the calculation of interest in this case.”
Cautions
In Gueta v. Gueta, he granted the defendants' dismissal motion as to the contract claims but denied it as to the tortious-interference claims.
“Defendants' motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED to the extent that complaint's causes of action for breach of contract... are hereby DISMISSED... those branches of Defendants' motion seeking dismissal of the seventh cause of action for tortious interference with contract and the eighth cause of action for tortious interference with business relations are denied”
In Ford v. North Hills Country Club, Inc., Judge Murphy dismissed a defamation complaint because the internal communication was qualifiedly privileged: the sender had a duty to report to recipients with a corresponding interest.
“he had a legitimate interest and a duty to make the communication to persons with a corresponding interest or duty, whether or not the language would otherwise be defamatory... Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint is granted on the grounds that the communication was qualifiedly privileged.”
In Hillary v. Gerstein, he declined to extend the medical-malpractice limitations period under the continuous-treatment doctrine because the patient had seen the physician only once and had no history of regularly scheduled visits.
“Under the circumstances where there is no prior history of decedent appearing for regularly scheduled visits, and having been seen by Dr. Gerstein on one occasion, there is no basis to conclude that there was any 'continuing trust and confidence' upon which the Court could conclude that decedent had an intention to return for additional treatment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDERED, that the motion by plaintiff to strike the Answer of defendant Amcor Electrical Contracting Corp. is granted”
“ORDERED, that the cross-motion by defendants to vacate the default and dismiss the action is denied”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint is granted.”
“Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment, or, alternatively, that the landowner had an obligation to plaintiff, which was violated by the placement of a dangerous instrumentality, and that this was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries, is denied.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint is granted on the grounds that the communication was qualifiedly privileged.”
“Plaintiff's motion for reargument is denied. The Court did not misapprehend the import of the cited cases, or the fact that disgorgement of a legal fee is not warranted unless it represents damages resulting from a tort, in this case, legal malpractice.”
“The Court therefore concludes that the statute of limitations expired on May 20, 2017, and that the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations. The motion by Dr. Gerstein to dismiss the Complaint as untimely commenced, is granted.”
“Plaintiff's motion to serve a Second Amended Complaint which extends the statute of limitations by extending the period of continuous treatment by Dr. Gerstein, is denied.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint on behalf of plaintiffs against VL 10 1620 New Highway, LLC is granted based upon the Statute of Limitations, and against Little Joseph Realty, LLC based upon the fact that plaintiffs have not rebutted the evidence submitted by defendants that this company has no relationship of any kind with the premises upon which plaintiff claims to have been injured.”
“In Motion Sequence No. 5, plaintiff seeks to further amend its Complaint to add new parties... This motion is denied, as the only named defendant which was timely served was Little Joseph Realty, LLC, which has no relationship to the subject property, and is not united in interest with either VL 10 New Highway, LLC, JPD United, Inc., or JPD I, LLC, the owner and manager, and owner, respectively of the premises.”
“Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Complaint is denied.”
“Defendant Creative Landscaping by Cow Bay, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the Complaint and any and all Cross-claims against it is granted.”
“The net proceeds received from the loan are not relevant to the calculation of interest in this case. The amount of the loan was $2,782,259.27, as agreed by the parties to the loan, thus exempting it from a claim of usury in accordance with GOL 5-501(6)(b). The motion to reargue the prior Decision and Order of this Court dated September 16, 2019 is denied.”
“ORDERED, that plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Motion Sequence 003) is in all respects denied”
“the case is dismissed in its entirety”
“ORDERED that those branches of the Union defendants' motion which are for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and for leave to enter a default judgment against plaintiff on their first counterclaim are granted”
“ORDERED that those branches of the Union defendants' motion which are for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and for leave to enter a default judgment against plaintiff on their first counterclaim are granted ... ORDERED that those branches of the Union defendants' motion which are for leave to enter a default judgment against plaintiff on their second, third, and fourth counterclaims and for summary judgment on the issue of liability on their counterclaims are denied”
“ORDERED that plaintiff's motion, pursuant to CPLR 3124, to compel the production of the tax returns of defendants Ovadia Meron and Galit Meron for the years 2008 through 2011 and 2019 through 2022 and the Form 1099s issued by defendant Ovadia Meron to TRV Corp. for the years 2008 through 2022 is GRANTED”
“ORDERED that the motion of defendants Ovadia Meron and Galit Meron to compel plaintiffs to produce unredacted copies of the tax documents, the schedule K-1's, of plaintiff ION Technology Solutions, LLC, which had already been produced to them by plaintiff in redacted form is DENIED.”
Draft for Judge Murphy with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Murphy, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Murphy's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace