Paul E. Hennings
How Judge Hennings rules, drawn from 5 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Hennings decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On speedy-trial calculations, the Appellate Term found he undercounted excludable time by not crediting a period when the defendant was between attorneys through no fault of the court: a reminder that in his courtroom the precise chargeable-period math, including counsel-transition gaps, is where these motions are actually won or lost on appeal.
“the 65 days from November 25, 2020 to January 29, 2021 should have been excluded as time during which ‘the defendant [was] without counsel through no fault of the court’”
In a discovery-noncompliance dismissal motion, he treats a party's repeated, unremedied failure to comply with a Preliminary Conference order, without any shown good-faith effort to cure, as sufficient for an inference of willful and contumacious conduct, but tempers even that finding with a final conditional cure period rather than an immediate dismissal.
“Any good faith attempts to obtain the discovery have failed. If the plaintiff fails to comply with this order, such numerous failures by the plaintiff to comply with discovery demands and orders, it can be inferred that the action is willful and contumacious”
Procedural preferences
Rather than dismissing outright for discovery noncompliance, he structures the sanction as a conditional order, dismissal only if the non-complying party still fails to cure within a set window, giving one last opportunity before the case is lost.
“the motion ... is granted, unless the plaintiff provides the discovery demanded within 30 days after the uploading of this order”
Cautions
His speedy-trial exclusion analysis was reversed on appeal for miscounting a period during which the defendant was between attorneys as chargeable to the People rather than excludable: litigants should not assume every gap in representation counts against the prosecution's readiness clock.
“Contrary to the District Court's analysis of the issue, the 65 days from November 25, 2020 to January 29, 2021 should have been excluded”
In small-claims/guarantor matters his credibility findings and lease-based rulings have held up on appeal, so a litigant hoping to overturn a small-claims judgment against them should expect the Appellate Term to defer heavily to his factual findings rather than reweigh the evidence.
“a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility ... This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Contrary to the District Court's analysis of the issue, the 65 days from November 25, 2020 to January 29, 2021 should have been excluded as time during which ‘the defendant [was] without counsel through no fault of the court’ ... Consequently the motion should have been denied.”
“Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fourth District (Paul E. Hennings, J.), entered August 13, 2024. The judgment, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,490 as against defendant John Di Iorio ... Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.”
“As limited by his brief, Di Iorio appeals from so much of a judgment of the District Court (Paul E. Hennings, J.) entered August 13, 2024, after a nonjury trial, as ... dismissed so much of a counterclaim for loss of personal property as was interposed by him.”
“ORDERED that the motion of the Advanced Orthopaedics, PLLC to dismiss for failure to comply with discovery demands is granted, unless the plaintiff provides the discovery demanded within 30 days after the uploading of this order, and it is further ORDERED if the plaintiff fails to comply, the moving defendant is directed to settle an order granting the motion and dismissing the action against it.”
“ORDERED that the motion by defendant Jonathan Mautschke for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against him is granted”
“the motion by defendant Wallace W. Klughers, II, d/b/a Quality Sheetrocking & Construction, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against him is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of plaintiffs first cause of action and Jonathan Mautschke' s cross-claims, and is otherwise denied”
“the motion by plaintiff for partial summary judgment in his favor on his Labor Law § 240 ( 1) claim is denied.”
“plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Labor Law§ 240( I) is granted and denied as to §241(6).”
Draft for Judge Hennings with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hennings, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hennings's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace