Reginald A. Boddie
How Judge Boddie rules, drawn from 34 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Boddie
Reginald A. Boddie is a justice of the New York Supreme Court in Kings County, where he presides in Commercial Part 12. He previously served on the New York City Civil Court and was elected to the Supreme Court in 2016.
Judge Boddie's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Boddie, 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
E-file each exhibit separately with a descriptive title and motion sequence number.
“Each exhibit whether appended to an affidavit or otherwise should be e-filed separately with a descriptive title (Designation of a document as simply ‘Exhibit A’ does not satisfy this requirement), and with motion sequence number.”
Motions
Request oral argument by email at least three days before the motion return date.
“Request for oral argument must be made by email to [[email protected]](/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#afc7dcdac7efc1d6ccc0dadddbdc81c8c0d9) at least three days before the motion’s return date.”
Motions
After the first adjournment in Part 95, court consent is required.
“After the first adjournment, consent of the Court is required.”
Conferences
E-file requests to adjourn scheduled appearances at least two business days ahead; late requests need good cause.
“Requests shall be e-filed no later than two (2) business days in advance of the scheduled appearance. Requests submitted after the deadline will be denied absent a showing of good cause.”
Trial
Before a Part 95 trial, give the court a list of potential witnesses in the intended order of testimony.
“Prior to trial, counsel shall provide to the Court a list of potential witnesses in the order in which they intend to call them at trial,”
How Judge Boddie decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Big City Outdoor, LLC v. JTRE 23 WS LLC, Boddie reformed a lease provision after finding that its reference to the lessee, rather than the lessor, was a drafting error shown by the parties' earlier agreements and the commercial context.
“Read in light of the prior agreements and the commercial context, that substitution is plainly a drafting error. The documentary record thus demonstrates that the 2017 Agreement, as written, does not accurately reflect the parties' actual intent.”
In Wythe Berry Fee Owner LLC v. Wythe Berry LLC, Boddie declined to enjoin the defendants from exercising rights under the prime lease because doing so would decide a claim that was not before him on the preliminary injunction motion.
“The determination of whether to enjoin defendants from exercising their rights under the prime lease necessarily entails the determination of plaintiff's third cause of action, which is not before the Court on this motion and the Court declines to make such determination sua sponte.”
In Wythe Berry Fee Owner LLC v. Wythe Berry LLC, Boddie rejected a standing challenge based on the landlord's collateral assignment to its lender. The defendants had not shown that the lender could collect rent beyond repayment of the loan or use it for another purpose.
“Defendants failed to demonstrate the lender's right to collect rents extended past satisfaction of the loan or that lender could, at its discretion, make use of the funds collected as rent other than to pay down the mortgage.”
Procedural preferences
In Fruchter v. Dreyfuss, Boddie denied preliminary injunctive relief because sharply disputed facts kept the plaintiffs from establishing a clear right to that relief.
“Since the facts are in sharp dispute, it cannot be said that plaintiffs established a clear right to preliminary injunctive relief”
In Wythe Berry Fee Owner LLC v. Wythe Berry LLC, Boddie denied the defendants' untimely pre-answer dismissal motion and deemed their answer waived.
“Wythe Berry and Weiss did not file an answer. Rather, they filed MS 4, a pre-answer motion to dismiss, on October 5, 2021, which was untimely. Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss is denied in its entirety and defendants' answer is deemed waived.”
In Bath & Twenty v. Federal Savings Bank, Boddie declined summary disposition of the disputed reasonable-reliance element of the fraud claim, explaining that the question was not suitable for resolution on that record.
“The issue of reasonable reliance is an essential element of a fraud claim and is not subject to summary disposition.”
Cautions
In L&M Pilates Brooklyn Mgmt, LLC v. Lerner, Boddie found an unlimited-duration noncompete unenforceable but allowed the claim based on the agreement's separate non-solicitation clause to proceed.
“As the non-compete clause is unlimited in duration, it is unenforceable. ... Lerner fails to establish that such claim must be dismissed [as to the non-solicitation clause].”
In Big City Outdoor, LLC v. JTRE 23 WS LLC, Boddie denied the plaintiff's summary judgment motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion only in part, reforming the 2017 agreement while denying the rest of the cross-motion.
“plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied in its entirety. Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment is granted to the extent that the 2017 Agreement is reformed ... plaintiff's affirmative defenses are dismissed ... The remainder of defendants' cross-motion is denied.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the petition is granted to the extent petitioner shall receive a refund in the amount of all interest, billed for and paid, for the period of July 1, 2008 through May 10, 2010, and continuing to February 19, 2016. Respondents' cross-motion is denied.”
“Respondents' cross-motion is denied.”
“defendant shall pay plaintiff U & O, pursuant to the lease, semi-annually in the amount of $7.5 million, with the next payment due on or before February 1, 2022, plus additional rent, on the grounds that such order accommodates the competing interests of the parties”
“plaintiff's order to show cause for a preliminary injunction (MS 3) is denied”
“defendants' motion to dismiss is denied in its entirety and defendants' answer is deemed waived”
“plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendants' counterclaims is granted only to the extent that Siegel's counterclaims are dismissed”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is granted only to the extent that the complaint is dismissed against Siegel. The remainder of the parties' motions is denied.”
“defendants failed to conclusively establish that they did not fraudulently induce plaintiffs into entering the contacts by misrepresenting to them that the mortgage would only be recorded against one property”
“the issue of reasonable reliance is an essential element of a fraud claim and is not subject to summary disposition. Therefore, plaintiffs' summary judgment motion is also denied.”
“defendant Lerner's motion to dismiss the complaint is granted to the extent that plaintiff's breach of contract claim premised on the Agreement's non-compete and unfair competition cause of action are dismissed. The motion is otherwise denied.”
“defendants fail to establish that plaintiff lacks standing to sue. ... Movant Defendants' motion (MS 3) is denied.”
“plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on his claim for breach of the Settlement Agreement (First Cause of Action) against Movant Defendants and Softstone Development and Management Group LLC ... Plaintiff's motion (MS 4) is granted to the extent granted herein but otherwise denied.”
“plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied in its entirety.”
“the branch of defendants' motion seeking reformation of the 2017 Agreement is granted, and the Agreement is reformed to substitute ‘Lessor’ for ‘Lessee’ in the subject termination provision.”
“the branch of defendants' motion seeking dismissal of plaintiff's affirmative defenses is granted, and plaintiff's affirmative defenses are hereby dismissed.”
“The order denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. ... Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.”
“The order denied the plaintiff's motion ... pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate a prior order of the same court dated June 22, 2018, granting the defendants' unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. ... Ordered that the order dated September 14, 2018, is affirmed, with costs.”
“upon granting the plaintiff's second motion for leave to renew and reargue, adhered to so much of the determination in the order dated June 22, 2015, as denied the plaintiff's prior motion, in effect, for leave to enter a default judgment and for an order of reference ... The order dated August 2, 2017, is reversed insofar as appealed from”
“in effect, granted leave to reargue and, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination denying that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim on the nonparty City of New York. ... the amended order dated July 26, 2018, is affirmed insofar as appealed from”
“The first order dated May 25, 2018, denied that defendant's motion (a), in effect, for leave to reargue, (b), in effect, to vacate the determinations in the order dated March 16, 2018 ... and (c) to dismiss the complaint ... for lack of personal jurisdiction. ... the first order dated May 25, 2018, is reversed insofar as reviewed”
Draft for Judge Boddie with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Boddie, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Boddie's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace