Melissa A. Crane
How Judge Crane rules, drawn from 35 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Crane
Melissa Crane was elected to the New York State Supreme Court in 2020 and joined the New York County Commercial Division in 2021. She previously served on the New York City Civil Court and as an acting Supreme Court justice. Before taking the bench, she worked as a principal court attorney and a commercial litigator, and earned degrees from Brandeis University and Cornell Law School.
Judge Crane's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Crane, 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
Copy every party on emails to the court.
“All parties must be copied on emails.”
Filing
Working or courtesy copies of motions are not accepted without prior court permission.
“Working or courtesy copies of motions and related documents are not accepted by email or otherwise except with prior permission of the Court, for in camera review”
Filing
E-filed documents must be text searchable and electronic memoranda must contain bookmarks.
“All e-filed documents must be text-searchable in an OCR-enabled format that permits copying and pasting. All electronically submitted memoranda of law must contain bookmarks”
Conferences
The court must approve adjournments of oral argument, conferences, and trials in advance.
“All adjournments (oral argument on motions, conferences, trials) require prior Court approval.”
How Judge Crane decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Board of Mgrs. of Atelier v. 627 West 42nd LLC, Crane read the condominium's governing document as allowing the commercial-unit owner to close cellar access doors; the provision did not guarantee residents entry through those doors.
“This power includes changes to the rules of its operation ... Nothing in this provision expressly or impliedly limits the commercial unit owner from closing the access doors to that unit from the Atelier cellar, or guarantees the Atelier residents the right to enter through those doors.”
In DB Auraria LLC v. Nelson, Crane appointed a receiver after a five-day hearing, citing the judgment debtors' failure to comply with court orders, shifting explanations, affiliate payments of personal expenses, and insolvency risk.
“Mr. Nelson blames everyone else for his business failings ... It is always someone else's fault, never his own. For all these reasons, a receiver is more than appropriate at this juncture.”
In People v. Gemini Trust Co., LLC, Crane sustained the state's core fraud claims but dismissed Penal Law-based claims as duplicative of the Martin Act and Executive Law claims arising from the same alleged conduct.
“These claims are duplicative as they are based on the same acts and omissions as the less restrictive Martin Act and Executive Law claims that the court sustained above.”
Procedural preferences
In Whealon v. Gramercy Park Residence Corp., Crane denied the request to disqualify Dr. Esposito and preclude his reports because the defendants' objections did not raise a Frye issue.
“Because defendants' arguments do not raise a Frye issue, the part of their motion seeking to disqualify Dr. Esposito as an expert and to preclude plaintiff from relying on his reports is denied, without the necessity of a hearing.”
In BGC Partners, Crane implemented appellate instructions requiring dismissal with prejudice and declined a proposed judgment that exceeded their scope.
“the court declines to sign plaintiffs' proposed ‘judgment’ (Doc 452)”
In Nichtberger v. Paramount Painting Group, LLC, Crane allowed a property claim to proceed beyond a motion to dismiss because the pleadings could support ownership despite the alleged use of misappropriated funds; the defendants' claimed right to the property required a fuller record.
“Although it may be likely that plaintiff purchased the items with purloined funds, this is a motion to dismiss and the pleadings can be read to state otherwise ... defendants' right to them requires further development of the record.”
Cautions
In Katz v. Navios Maritime Holdings, Inc., the Appellate Division reversed Crane's order dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied the defendant's dismissal motion.
“Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered January 9, 2026, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion denied.”
In Estate of Margaret Kainer v. Christie's Inc., the Appellate Division reversed Judge Crane's denial of the plaintiffs' request to vacate a stay, holding that the long-dormant art-restitution action should move forward despite the unresolved foreign heirship proceeding.
“Notwithstanding that no such resolution has been achieved, we agree with plaintiffs that the stay should be vacated, and this long-dormant New York action ... should move forward.”
In DB Auraria LLC v. Nelson, Crane appointed a receiver after finding that the judgment debtors failed to comply with court orders and routed personal expenses through a controlled affiliate despite restraining notices.
“First and foremost is the judgment debtors' inability to comply with court orders ... it is clear that the judgment debtors are attempting an end run around the restraining notices by having an affiliate they control pay personal expenses and other debts of their choosing.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is denied”
“ORDERED that the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment is granted to the extent that the first through sixth, ninth, and tenth causes of action are dismissed; and it is further ADJUDGED, DECREED AND DECLARED that defendants are NOT required to make the swimming pool and fitness center accessible to plaintiff Unit Owners via existing glass doors located in the basement of the Atelier”
“ORDERED that Nu Way Contracting, Inc.'s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied; and it is further ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed together with costs and disbursements as taxed by the Clerk of the court”
“ORDERED that the motion of plaintiff Timothy Whealon seeking sanctions for spoliation of evidence against defendants Gramercy Park Residence Corp., the Board of Directors of Gramercy Park Residence Corp. and J&C Lamb Management Corp. (motion sequence no. 002) is denied”
“ORDERED that the motion of defendants Gramercy Park Residence Corp., the Board of Directors of Gramercy Park Residence Corp. and J&C Lamb Management Corp. for dismissal or summary judgment (motion sequence no. 003) is granted to the extent of dismissing the third cause of action for gross negligence and the third cause of action is dismissed, and the balance of the motion is otherwise denied”
“ORDERED THAT defendants' motion to dismiss is granted as to the first and second causes of action and is otherwise denied; and it is further ORDERED THAT defendants shall continue to preserve the chattels at issue pending determination of the claims between the parties”
“For all these reasons, a receiver is more than appropriate at this juncture ... Accordingly, the court grants the motion in accordance with the attached judgment and order appointing a receiver.”
“ORDERED that Motion Seq. Nos. 02, 03, and 05 are granted only to the extent that the eighth and ninth causes of action are dismissed from the amended complaint; and it is further ORDERED that the motions to dismiss are otherwise denied; and it is further ORDERED that defendants shall answer the amended complaint within 20 days”
Crane amended two earlier orders to carry out appellate decisions requiring dismissal of the amended complaint with prejudice. She also declined to sign a proposed judgment that exceeded the appellate instructions and appeared designed to revive prior appeals.
“Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered November 12, 2024, which denied defendants' CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.”
“Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered August 15, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion insofar as it sought to dismiss plaintiff's claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and accounting, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting the motion insofar as it sought to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action as against defendant 930-DSIC Partner, LLC ... and the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action, and otherwise affirmed”
“Plaintiffs appeal from an order of Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered on or about April 3, 2025, which denied their motion to renew ... or, alternatively, to vacate the stay ... we agree with plaintiffs that the stay should be vacated”
“Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered on or about March 11, 2025, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.”
“Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered on or about January 22, 2025, which granted defendants Citizens Telecommunications Company of New York, Inc. ... motion for summary judgment (mot seq 34) dismissing the sixth amended complaint as against these defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.”
“denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its claim that certain defendants (the access line defendants) violated State Finance Law Section 189 (1) (h) (mot seq 44); and denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its claim that certain defendants violated State Finance Law Section 189 (1) (g) (mot seq 45), unanimously affirmed, without costs”
“granted defendants CenturyLink Communications, LLC and Level 3 Communications, LLC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the sixth amended complaint as against them (mot seq 36) ... granted defendant YMax Communications Corp.'s motion for summary judgment ... (mot seq 37) ... granted defendants' AT&T Communications of New York, Inc., AT&T Corp., and TC Systems's motion for summary judgment ... (mot seq 38) ... granted defendant KPMG, LLP's motion for summary judgment ... (mot seq 39) ... granted defendant Metropolitan Telecommunications Holding Company LLC's motion for summary judgment ... (mot seq 40) ... granted defendants Altice USA, Inc., CSC Holdings, LLC, Cablevision Lightpath, LLC and NY OV, LLC's motion for summary judgment ... (mot seq 42) ... granted defendant Bandwidth Inc.'s motion for summary judgment ... (mot seq 43)”
Draft for Judge Crane with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Crane, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Crane's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace