Joseph E. Lamendola
How Judge Lamendola rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Lamendola
Joseph E. Lamendola has served as a New York Supreme Court justice in the Fifth Judicial District since 2020 and is assigned to the Commercial Division in Onondaga County. He previously served as Syracuse corporation counsel and as a staff judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force. He earned degrees from the State University of New York at Plattsburgh, Cardiff University and Tulane University School of Law.
Judge Lamendola's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Lamendola, 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
File all submissions and direct correspondence in e-filed cases through NYSCEF.
“For any e-filed case, all submissions, including proposed orders, proposed judgments, and correspondence to the Court, must be electronically filed through NYSCEF.”
Filing
Do not send working copies unless the court requests them.
“Justice Lamendola does not require working copies.”
Filing
File exhibits separately from the affidavit or affirmation.
“Exhibits are to be filed separately from the Affidavit/Affirmation, not as the same document.”
How Judge Lamendola decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In DiDomenico v. McWhorter, Judge Lamendola granted summary judgment based on a release signed after a vehicle collision. The Fourth Department reversed because evidence raised a factual question whether the parties had mistaken the absence of a then-existing traumatic brain injury.
“We therefore reverse the order, deny the motion, and reinstate the complaint.”
In Matter of Charles G., Judge Lamendola continued the petitioner’s confinement after an annual review hearing. The Fourth Department affirmed, reporting that he credited the State’s expert over an independent examiner who favored release from confinement.
“The court credited the testimony of respondent’s expert”
In Matter of Mason, Lamendola denied a mother's petition to relocate with her children to North Carolina. The Fourth Department reversed, finding that his best-interests determination lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record.
“the determination of Supreme Court that the proposed relocation to North Carolina is not in the children’s best interests lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record.”
Procedural preferences
During a medical malpractice trial, he declined a requested missing-witness charge concerning an uncalled treating physician. The Fourth Department held that he had placed the burden on the wrong party to show whether the testimony would be cumulative and ordered a new trial.
“the court improperly placed the burden on plaintiff to establish that the evidence would not be cumulative”
In Vandee v. Suit-Kote, Lamendola granted the defendant leave to reargue and then granted summary judgment on a contract claim. The Fourth Department reinstated that claim because the defendant had not shown that payments into a pooled benefits trust satisfied its obligation to each worker.
“defendant failed to meet its initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that its method of paying the acknowledged shortfall of supplemental benefits into the pooled Trust resulted in plaintiffs each receiving full prevailing supplemental benefits”
In Verdugo v. Fox Building Group, Lamendola granted several defendants summary judgment on Labor Law claims. The Fourth Department reinstated the claims against three defendants but affirmed the dismissal as to the crane-truck company on a different ground.
“unanimously modified on the law by denying those parts of defendants' motions seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) causes of action against defendants Hinsdale Road Group, LLC, CBD Construction, LLC, and Fox Building Group, Inc.”
Cautions
In Flanders v. Goodfellow, the Court of Appeals reversed Lamendola's summary judgment for dog owners after finding triable questions about their knowledge of the dog's behavior. It also overruled a precedent that had barred ordinary negligence claims against domestic-animal owners.
“Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment denied.”
In Flanders v. Goodfellow, the Court of Appeals reversed Lamendola's summary judgment for dog owners and overruled precedent barring ordinary negligence claims against domestic-animal owners.
“to the extent we previously held that a plaintiff may not assert a common-law negligence cause of action against the owner of a domestic animal for harms caused by that animal, we now overrule that precedent”
In the cited Article 78 proceeding, the Fourth Department held that Lamendola had improperly transferred the petition on a substantial-evidence theory because the underlying hearing was contractual rather than statutory.
“Supreme Court erred in transferring the proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g) on the ground that the petition raised a substantial evidence issue”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The order denied the motion of defendants-appellants to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.”
“granted the motion of defendant for leave to reargue and, upon reargument, granted the motion of defendant for summary judgment insofar as it sought dismissal of the breach of contract cause of action.”
“It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion for summary judgment insofar as it sought to dismiss the first cause of action and reinstating that cause of action, and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.”
“The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.”
“Supreme Court, inter alia, granted Pro Scapes' motion and denied Loretto's cross motion. ... unanimously modified on the law by denying those parts of the motion of defendant Pro Scapes, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against it ..., and reinstating the amended complaint against it and the cross claim against it ..., and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.”
“Initially, we note that Supreme Court erred in transferring the proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g) on the ground that the petition raised a substantial evidence issue. ... the determination is unanimously annulled on the law without costs and the petition is granted.”
“Supreme Court denied the motion of Serens and Pipas with respect to the claims against them based upon decedent's admission ... The court also denied the motion of Patel and Chan, among others, with respect to Patel ... It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.”
“petitioner-respondent mother appeals from an order that denied her petition seeking permission to relocate with the subject children to North Carolina. ... the order so appealed from is reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedings.”
“Plaintiff now appeals from an order granting defendants' motion for dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3216 and, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3212. ... It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is affirmed without costs.”
“plaintiff appeals from an order insofar as it denied plaintiff's motion with respect to the issue of three defendants' liability under Labor Law 240 (1) ... plaintiff failed to establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in that respect inasmuch as there are triable issues of fact whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident.”
“granted those parts of defendants' motions seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law 240 (1) causes of action. ... unanimously modified on the law by denying those parts of defendants' motions seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 240 (1) causes of action against defendants Hinsdale Road Group, LLC, CBD Construction, LLC, and Fox Building Group, Inc., and reinstating those causes of action against those defendants.”
“The order, among other things, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted those parts of defendants' motions seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) causes of action.”
“Supreme Court denied the motion, and plaintiff now appeals. ... unanimously modified in the exercise of discretion by granting the application insofar as it sought leave to serve a late notice of claim with respect to the third and fourth causes of action ..., and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.”
“Supreme Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred. We reverse.”
“Supreme Court granted the motion. Plaintiff appeals, and we reverse.”
Draft for Judge Lamendola with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Lamendola, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Lamendola's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace