Sharon M.J. Gianelli
How Judge Gianelli rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Gianelli
Sharon M.J. Gianelli has served as a New York Supreme Court justice in Nassau County since 2015 and joined its Commercial Division in 2021. She previously served as a Nassau County District Court judge and as counsel to the Nassau County Legislature. She earned degrees from Syracuse University and Brooklyn Law School.
Judge Gianelli's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Gianelli, 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
Discovery
Parties must meet and confer in good faith before escalating a discovery dispute under Commercial Division Rules 14 and 24.
“If a discovery dispute cannot be resolved after good faith efforts by the parties to meet and confer,”
Conferences
Use the Part 6 Preliminary Conference Order and complete it after meeting and conferring before the conference.
“Parties must use this Part’s Preliminary Conference Order.”
Conferences
A preliminary conference may be adjourned only for good cause.
“A preliminary conference may not be adjourned, except for good cause.”
Trial
Submit motions in limine no later than ten business days before the pretrial conference.
“Motions in limine are to be submitted no later than 10 business days before the pre-trial conference, unless otherwise directed by the Court,”
How Judge Gianelli decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Lolli v. Wesco Insurance Co., Judge Gianelli dismissed a COVID-19 business-interruption claim because the complaint alleged no tangible loss of or damage to property under the governing precedent.
“In this matter, there is no new or different evidence or argument made that would cause this Court to deviate from the clearly established binding precedent that presently exists in numerous identical cases. Accordingly, without any allegation of real, tangible damage to or loss of property, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
In Velasco v. New York Paving Inc., she denied Nassau County's pre-answer dismissal motion because it supplied no evidence about the paving work at issue and no affidavit from a person with personal knowledge.
“Furthermore, Defendant County of Nassau has not submitted a single affidavit of any individual with personal knowledge in support of its motion for an Order dismissing Plaintiff's Summons and Verified Complaint”
Procedural preferences
In Dagounakis v. Bay Terrace Plaza LLC, she struck George Menexas's pleading and precluded evidence after repeated discovery noncompliance, then denied his effort to vacate the resulting default because his stated excuse was insufficient.
“Defendant George Menexas offers babysitting delays as his excuse for failing to appear in Court as directed -- this following a history of non-compliance and dilatory and evasive conduct on his part throughout the discovery phase of this litigation. The excuse is insufficient to establish it as a reasonable excuse for his default.”
Cautions
In South Shore Eye Care, LLP v. Lane, the Appellate Division affirmed Judge Gianelli's ruling on the expulsion clause, holding that Lane had not shown bad faith through an undue penalty or unjust forfeiture.
“Lane failed to demonstrate the existence of bad faith, as he failed to establish that there was any undue penalty or unjust forfeiture that resulted from his expulsion”
In Blank v. Acker, the Appellate Division reversed her denial of a dismissal motion and dismissed claims based on oral promises to convey property or make a testamentary gift under the applicable writing requirements.
“the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint is granted ... [claims] barred by the statute of frauds ... and ... EPTL 13-2.1(a)(2)”
In premises-liability motions involving an out-of-possession landlord's snow/ice removal obligations, at least one denial of summary judgment for the defendant was reversed on appeal where the lease squarely placed the removal duty on the plaintiff-tenant himself and no statute or course of conduct shifted that duty to the landlord.
“the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDERED, that Defendant County of Nassau's motion for an Order dismissing Plaintiffs Summons and Verified Complaint, as well as any cross-claims as against Defendant County of Nassau, is Denied;”
“the Court uses its discretion and finds that the sought relief is appropriate in the instant action based on the facts and arguments presented. Accordingly ... Plaintiff TAILORED FUND CAP LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FUNDING SOURCE's application for a Preliminary Injunction pursuant to CPLR 6301 restraining the funds ... by up to the sum of $98,710.75 pending the resolution of the action, is Granted”
“The Court has considered the parties' contentions and concludes that the movant fails to eliminate all triable issues of facts with respect to the conflicting claims and allegations which have been advanced. Accordingly, It is ORDERED, that Defendant Jeffrey H. Fox, D.D.S's motion for an Order of the Court granting movant summary judgment ... is Denied.”
“Petitioner's application is unopposed, was brought within the requisite one year period, and there is no evidence of the award having been vacated or modified. As such, this Court hereby confirms the arbitrator's award. Accordingly ... ORDERED, that Petitioner's request to confirm the February 11, 2021 arbitration award in the amount of $37,020.09, is Granted”
“In this matter, not only has Defendant WESCO answered during the pendency of the motion, Plaintiff has entered into two (2) separate stipulations to extend the briefing schedules of the underlying pending motions, demonstrating that Defendant WESCO has been actively participating in this action and that Plaintiff will suffer no prejudice. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for a judgment on default, against WESCO is denied.”
“In this matter, there is no new or different evidence or argument made that would cause this Court to deviate from the clearly established binding precedent that presently exists in numerous identical cases. Accordingly, without any allegation of real, tangible damage to or loss of property, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
“ORDERED, that Defendant WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY's motion for an Order dismissing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, is Granted.”
“The order granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and denied the motion of the defendants ... inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them ... ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. ... Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court's decision to grant the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction was not an improvident exercise of discretion.”
“the MCRM defendants failed to demonstrate that the prior action remained pending at the time the plaintiff commenced the instant action, and therefore the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the MCRM defendants' motion which was to dismiss the complaint ... on this ground. ... the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the MCRM defendants' motion which sought dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), since the MCRM defendants failed to meet their burden”
“Notwithstanding the numerous warnings and Orders, Defendant George Menexas has repeatedly refused to comply with Plaintiffs' lawful discovery demands, as well as the Court's Decisions and Orders ... ORDERED, that Plaintiffs' motion (Mot. Seq. No. 019) for an Order of the Court striking Defendant George Menexas' Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims pursuant to CPLR 3126, is Granted”
“ORDERED, that Plaintiffs' motion (Mot. Seq. No. 019) for an Order of the Court prohibiting Defendant George Menexas from introducing evidence at trial related to the claims in this action, is Granted”
“ORDERED, that awarding Plaintiffs' motion (Mot. Seq. No. 019) for an Order of the Court awarding Plaintiffs costs and attorneys' fees associated with the motion, is Granted”
“In his Affidavit in Support of the motion to vacate ... Defendant George Menexas offers babysitting delays as his excuse for failing to appear in Court as directed ... The excuse is insufficient to establish it as a reasonable excuse for his default. ... Defendant George Menexas has failed to demonstrate that vacatur of the default is warranted.”
“ordering Plaintiffs' counsel to provide Defendant George Menexas with a copy of his deposition transcript; ordering Plaintiffs' counsel to provide Defendant George Menexas with a list of all parties subpoenaed and the documents collected from each, as well as the date received; and ordering Plaintiffs' counsel to provide Defendant George Menexas with a copy of the QuickBooks subpoena production, is Denied in its entirety.”
“the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sharon M.J. Gianelli, J.), entered September 23, 2019. The order granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint ... the complaint failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for private nuisance”
“The order granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the complaint and denied, as academic, the defendant's cross-motion for leave to amend his answer. ... The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the complaint because they demonstrated, prima facie, that the contract fails for lack of consideration”
“the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's cross-motion for leave to amend his answer ... the outcome of the proposed counterclaims, including those alleging unjust enrichment and quantum meruit, would have had no effect on the present controversy, and therefore, the court properly determined that the defendant's cross-motion was academic.”
“the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sharon M.J. Gianelli, J.), dated June 26, 2020. The order denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. ... the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.”
“the defendant Stephen Slavin appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sharon M.J. Gianelli, J.), dated April 12, 2021. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint ... Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from ... the defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law”
“the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sharon M.J. Gianelli, J.), dated December 14, 2023. The order denied the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint. ... ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint is granted.”
Draft for Judge Gianelli with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gianelli, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gianelli's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace