William M. Skretny
How Judge Skretny rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Skretny no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Skretny
William M. Skretny served on the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, he received his commission on August 7, 1990 and took senior status on March 8, 2015. The court now lists him as inactive.
How Judge Skretny decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Jarosz v. American Axle, Skretny held that the pension plan's workers' compensation exception was unambiguous and applied its plain meaning. He added that, even if the provision were ambiguous, the beneficiaries' settled expectations and the plan's prior administration favored their interpretation.
“This Court therefore finds that the language of subsection (c) is unambiguous and must be given its plain meaning, as set forth above.”
On a personal-jurisdiction challenge by a foreign manufacturer, repeated, knowing shipment of goods into New York over a long-running commercial relationship established purposeful availment even though the defendant never handled delivery logistics itself.
“Pektron purposely engaged in multiple transactions totaling over $1 million in sales, with affirmative knowledge that the goods were destined for New York.”
In a debt-collector standing dispute over civil forfeiture, actual use, control, and financial responsibility for a vehicle established a possessory interest sufficient to contest forfeiture, regardless of the government's strawman theory based on the vehicle's high value relative to the claimed owner's income.
“he purchased the Vehicle; he held title to the Vehicle; he insured the Vehicle; he maintained the Vehicle; he held the keys to the Vehicle; he drove the Vehicle 75% of the time ... this is a sufficient showing of possessory interest to confer standing.”
Procedural preferences
The judge holds a Federal Arbitration Act motion to compel to summary-judgment-like evidentiary standards: a movant who substantiates entitlement to arbitrate with evidence shifts the burden to the opposing party to come forward with a genuine factual dispute, not a bare denial.
“If the party seeking arbitration has substantiated the entitlement by a showing of evidentiary facts, the party opposing may not rest on a denial but must submit evidentiary facts showing that there is a dispute of fact to be tried.”
In Ergas v. Eastpoint Recovery Group, Skretny granted reconsideration of an earlier summary-judgment order after finding that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing. He dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and terminated both summary-judgment motions without reaching their merits.
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 63) is granted. The Decision and Order of May 10, 2022 (Docket No. 61, 2022 WL 1471348), is modified and the case is dismissed for lack of standing and subject matter jurisdiction. The parties’ Motions (Docket Nos. 52, 53) are terminated rather than ruled upon. The case remains dismissed.”
In Peters v. City of Buffalo, Skretny granted leave to amend at an early stage after the defendants did not oppose the amendment or show prejudice. He resolved the pending dismissal motions against the second amended complaint.
“No defendant has filed an opposition to Plaintiff's cross-motion. ... Defendants have provided no grounds on which they would be prejudiced. ... this Court will grant leave to amend and resolve the two motions to dismiss as against the second amended complaint.”
Cautions
In Hallmark v. Cohen & Slamowitz, Skretny declined to credit a debt collector's reply-brief argument that an agreement authorized its recovery of court costs. The opening brief had not identified that authority, leaving the plaintiff unable to respond.
“‘new arguments may not be made in a reply brief’ ... this principle is particularly apt here where Hallmark was unable to respond to the potentially pivotal argument that he is bound by an agreement -- heretofore unmentioned -- that permitted Defendants to recover court costs.”
In Anello v. Anderson, Skretny granted the plaintiff's post-trial requests for attorney fees and costs but reduced both awards. He granted the defendants' post-trial motion in part and denied it in part.
“Anello's motion for attorneys' fees is granted, but with a reduced fee award; and Anello's Bill of Costs is granted, but with a reduced costs award.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that the government's Motion to Dismiss Justin Magness's Petition (Docket No. 339) is GRANTED. FURTHER, that Justin Magness's Petition (Docket No. 329) is DISMISSED.”
“Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 62) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, consistent with the foregoing decision.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 61) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, consistent with the foregoing decision.”
“IT HEREBY IS ORDERED that the summary judgment motion of Defendants County of Erie, Erie County Sheriff's Office, John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 (Docket No. 23) is GRANTED”
“the summary judgment motion of Defendants Lindsey Styborski and the SPCA (Docket No. 24) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“the summary judgment motion of Defendant Carolyn A. Robinson (Docket No. 25) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“the government's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to dismiss Payne's claim for lack of standing. For the following reasons, the government's motion to dismiss is denied, but its motion for summary judgment is granted.”
“Pektron now moves to dismiss this action for lack of personal jurisdiction. For the following reasons, that motion is denied.”
“Defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings are denied”
“Hallmark's motion to certify this case as a class action is granted”
“his motion to strike is denied as moot”
“The Bills now move to dismiss each claim and compel Hojnowksi to pursue this dispute in arbitration. For the following reasons, that motion is granted.”
“Defendant's motion is granted and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
“Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part”
“Anello's motion for attorneys' fees is granted, but with a reduced fee award”
“Anello's Bill of Costs is granted, but with a reduced costs award.”
“Pending before this Court is the Town's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 27.) For the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
“the motions by State, Assembly, and Silver are granted, and the motion by Gabryszak is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 241 days (N = 1).
- The sampled dockets spanned employment discrimination (age, religion, and disability), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act consumer suits, an ADA public-accommodations claim, and a motor-vehicle personal-injury case, alongside a large volume of Social Security appeals and Monsanto Roundup product-liability filings visible at the case-enumeration level.
- Several sampled cases resolved by settlement or voluntary/stipulated dismissal rather than a contested ruling, consistent with a civil docket where most cases do not reach judgment.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 33 | 15 |
| Mar 2025 | 21 | 18 |
| Sep 2024 | 18 | 20 |
| Mar 2024 | 14 | 20 |
| Sep 2023 | 10 | 17 |
| Mar 2023 | 12 | 21 |
| Sep 2022 | 10 | 22 |
| Mar 2022 | 9 | 16 |
| Sep 2021 | 9 | 19 |
| Mar 2021 | 30 | 29 |
| Sep 2020 | 37 | 35 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
A historical record
Judge Skretny no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.