Joseph Risi
How Judge Risi rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Risi
Joseph Risi was appointed a judge of the New York State Court of Claims in 2017 and designated an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court in Queens County later that year. He presides over civil matters in Queens, including Commercial Division Part C, and was reappointed to the Court of Claims in 2026.
Judge Risi's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Risi, 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
Contacting chambers
E-file and email proposed orders, stipulations, and other documents needing court action.
“Documents requiring Court action, including proposed orders and stipulations must be e-filed and emailed to the Part.”
Motions
Commercial Division Part C motions generally need no advance permission or Rule 24 letter.
“Except for discovery motions, no prior permission is required before making a motion in Commercial Division Part C. A Commercial Division Rule 24 letter is not required unless expressly requested.”
Discovery
Email Commercial Division Part C to arrange a virtual conference before making a discovery motion.
“Prior to making a discovery motion, parties must email Commercial Division Part C at [email protected] to arrange a mutually convenient date and time for a virtual conference.”
How Judge Risi decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Anderson, Risi granted the defendants summary judgment under the emergency doctrine. Although the deposition accounts conflicted, the bus surveillance video resolved the factual dispute; the Appellate Division affirmed.
“The video established, prima facie, that Singh was confronted with an emergency not of his own making, leaving him only seconds to react and virtually no opportunity to avoid the collision”
In Philip S. Schwartzman, Inc. v. Pliskin, Risi dismissed the legal malpractice claim after finding that the plaintiff's earlier affidavits belied its allegations. He treated the statements as informal judicial admissions and documentary evidence, and separately found the alleged damages too speculative.
“Those statements constitute informal judicial admissions and documentary evidence warranting the dismissal of plaintiffs' legal malpractice claim.”
In Lomto Federal Credit Union v. Dumont, Risi dismissed tort claims against the transit authority for failure to serve a timely notice of claim and held the requested Article 78 relief time barred.
“Timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to the commencement of an action sounding in tort against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority ... The defendant/third-party plaintiff's causes of action which are in the nature for Article 78 relief are time-barred”
Procedural preferences
In Diosmaira, Risi granted the plaintiff leave to reargue, then denied the transit authority's previously granted summary judgment motion while continuing to deny the plaintiff's own summary judgment request. The Appellate Division affirmed both rulings.
“the court granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue her cross-motion and her opposition to the defendant's prior motion, and, upon reargument, inter alia, denied the defendant's prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and adhered to its prior determination denying that branch of the plaintiff's cross-motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability.”
In Triple E Construction, Risi denied the plaintiff's motion to vacate its default in replying to counterclaims because its assertions of law office failure did not establish a reasonable excuse.
“the plaintiff's conclusory and unsubstantiated assertions of law office failure failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its default in serving a reply to the defendants' counterclaims”
Cautions
In Castillo-Florez v. Charlecius, Risi granted a default judgment after finding that the defendant's failure to update his DMV address barred a challenge to service at the former address. The Appellate Division reversed and ordered a hearing, holding that failure to update the DMV alone did not establish deliberate evasion of service.
“the mere failure to update one's address with the DMV, standing alone, does not automatically equate with a deliberate attempt to avoid service and warrant estopping a defendant from challenging the propriety of service at a former address. To the extent our prior decisions ... conflict with this principle, they should no longer be followed”
In a foreclosure matter he granted the lender summary judgment and rejected the borrower's heir's statute-of-limitations defense, but the Appellate Division reversed outright, holding the debt had already been accelerated by a decade-earlier prior action and the 2022 Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act barred any revival theory: a reminder that FAPA's retroactive limitations rules can flip an otherwise-routine foreclosure summary-judgment grant on appeal.
“the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that the instant action ... was time-barred, as the statute of limitations began to run on the entire debt, at the latest, by February 18, 2010, when BOA commenced the prior action to foreclose, and elected in the complaint to call due the entire amount secured by the reverse mortgage”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“an amended order of the same court (Joseph Risi, J.), entered October 10, 2018, granting the plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to enter a default judgment”
“In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment against Charlecius (2020 NY Slip Op 35489[U]). The court determined that ... service upon him at that address was nevertheless permissible because Charlecius had failed to update his mailing address with the DMV”
“the third-party action concerns, inter alia, 'the recovery or payment of money,' the statute requires Dumont to serve a notice of claim upon the PA which he did not do ... the motion by third-party plaintiff Dumont is denied and the motions to dismiss by third-party defendants are granted”
“the motions to dismiss by third-party defendants are granted and third-party's complaint is dismissed in its entirety against all third-party defendants”
“defendant/third-party plaintiff Dumont failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits on any cause of action in this lawsuit ... Dumont also did not show that there is any basis for returning the taxi medallion to him”
“the motions of defendants PRBV and Vitulli, Esq. ... to dismiss are granted and plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed in its entirety against all defendants”
“defendants Vitulli, Jr., JJ and Linden [motions] to dismiss are granted and plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed in its entirety against all defendants”
“The part of the motion of defendants Vitulli, Jr., JJ and Linden seeking an award of costs and to impose sanctions against plaintiffs is denied as the conduct of plaintiffs in bringing the action against them cannot be said to rise to the level of 'frivolous' within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1”
“an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joseph J. Risi, J.), entered November 25, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.”
“an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joseph Risi, J.), entered May 14, 2020. The order granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.”
“an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joseph Risi, J.), entered July 30, 2019. The order denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew her opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint”
“an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joseph Risi, J.), dated March 31, 2021. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability.”
“an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joseph J. Risi, J.), entered July 6, 2021. The order denied that defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.”
“an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joseph J. Risi, J.), entered April 19, 2021. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability.”
“an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joseph Risi, J.), entered July 27, 2023. The order granted the defendants' motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the plaintiff on their counterclaims and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion”
“denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate its default in serving a reply to the defendants' counterclaims and, thereupon, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the counterclaims”
“an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joseph Risi, J.), entered June 22, 2022. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the plaintiff's cross-motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability.”
Draft for Judge Risi with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Risi, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Risi's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace