Average Closing Time Report for
Judge X
Southern District of New York
Hide Details  |
Judge | District | Compared To District |
U.S. | Compared To U.S. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New filings | 320 | 323 | -0.9% | 260 | 23.3% |
| All cases closed | 395 | 369 | 7.1% | 258 | 53.1% |
| Average days to close | 311 | 337 | -7.6% | 327 | -4.8% |
| Cases closed after 1 year | 93 | 100 | -7.1% | 77 | 20.6% |
| Average days to close | 894 | 877 | 2.0% | 777 | 15.0% |
| Weighted cases filed | 335 | 344 | -2.7% | 260 | 28.8% |
| Weighted cases closed | 424 | 396 | 7.0% | 258 | 64.4% |
Table 1: Average Closing Time Comparison
For all civil cases disposed of in the Southern District of New York during the 12-month period ending in June 2023 that were credited to Judge X, the average closing time was 311 days. This figure was 7.6% lower than the average closing time for all civil matters disposed of in the Southern District of New York in this period. At the same time, the judge's average closing time was 4.8% lower than typical for the nation as a whole. During the 12-month span covered here, Judge X had disposed of 395 cases. For this group, 93 cases had been pending for one year or more, before being closed.
Focusing only on Judge X's cases that were closed after they had been pending for one year or more, the average closing time was 894 days. This was 2.0% higher than the 877 days typical for this category among the judges in the Southern District of New York and 15.0% higher than the 777 days for the nation.
Figure 1 compares the performance of Judge X in dealing with civil cases that were closed after they had been pending for one year or more with that of other judges, both those in this district and for the whole nation.
The records show that during the past 12 months in the Southern District of New York there were 36 judges with dispositions of this type that could be compared with Judge X. Actual values for all of these 36 judges ranged from 610 days to 1652 days. Judge X's average closing time of 894 days was in the middle of the rankings relative to the district's other 36 judges. These statistics are only for the cases that were closed after they had been pending for one year or more.
The Challenge of Comparing Individual Civil Caseloads
But additional factors should be considered in such judge-by-judge comparisons even when the judges are in the same district. District court judges must handle all cases assigned to them. They cannot dismiss cases simply because their dockets are full or over flowing. Further, any one judge's workload is a reflection of the volume and nature of cases filed in that district relative to the number of judges available to share the workload.
Figure 3 compares comparative caseload counts for Judge X relative to the average caseload of each judge in the district and the nation as a whole that were closed. (For the actual numbers see Table 1.) District and national figures are based upon caseload counts for regular fulltime court judges who were on the bench during the entire preceding 12-month period.
Weighting. Civil cases naturally differ in their complexity and the amount of time that may be required to handle them in a fair and expeditious way. Thus, in addition to the volume of cases, the various kinds of cases handled by individual judges will influence these statistical comparisons. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC), however, has developed a weighting system to adjust for the differences in the average time required to handle cases depending upon the nature of the suit. Using this weighting system, the average number of the weighted cases disposed of per judge in the Southern District of New York was 396 while the average number of the weighted cases for all judges in the U.S. was 258. By comparison, Judge X handled 424 cases. These weighted caseload figures are compared in Figure 4.
Random assignment. Random assignment of cases to judges in the same assignment pool over the course of a year should result in a similar number of cases for each judge, as well as a roughly similar case composition for each judge. Naturally a senior judge who has retired from the bench but still handles cases on a voluntary basis might -- with random assignment -- be assigned a lower caseload, or volunteer only for particular types of cases.
Since a single district often is divided into more than one case assignment pool when there are courthouses in separate cities, caseload and performance statistics should be examined by court location to help ensure that comparisons are within the same assignment pool.
Court docket numbers now include a numerical code ("office") that designates the court where that case was assigned, although sometimes it designates a special class of cases. While the Southern District of New York had an average weighted caseload per judge of 396, the corresponding figures by courthouse were:
N. Y., S - Foley Square - 434 cases
N. Y., S - White Plains - 235 cases
Professional Biography
Born 1968 in New York, NY
Federal Judicial Service
Judge, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Nominated by Barack Obama on July 28, 2011; Confirmed by the Senate on March 22, 2012, and received commission on March 23, 2012.
Education:
Cornell University, B.A., 1990
Yale Law School, J.D., 1993
Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Thomas P. Griesa, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1993-1994
Private practice, New York City, 1994-1998, 2008-2012
Assistant U.S. attorney, Southern District of New York, 1998-2008
acting chief, General Crimes Unit, 2004-2005
chief, General Crimes Unit, 2005-2007
deputy chief, Criminal Division, 2007-2008
Lecturer-in-law, Columbia University School of Law, 2008-
Courthouses Within the District
Cases disposed of in the Southern District of New York in the past year were handled by more than one office. The N. Y., S - Foley Square office accounted for 100.0% of Judge X's cases.
| Office | Judge | District | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N. Y., S - Foley Square | 100.0% | 89.8% | More |
| N. Y., S - White Plains | - | 10.2% |
Table 2: Distribution of Cases by Office
Nature of Suit in Closed Cases
Cases disposed of by Judge X for the past twelve months fell into a number of broad categories. The most common category for these cases was "Civil Rights " accounting for 47.1% of cases.
Other major categories with cases that were disposed by Judge X over the past twelve months were: Other Statutes (12.9%), Contract (10.1%), Labor (7.6%), Property Rights (5.6%), Immigration (5.1%), Torts - Personal Injury - Other (4.1%), Prisoner Petitions (3.0%), Torts - Personal Property (1.8%), Torts - Personal Injury - Product Liability (1.3%).
| Nature of Suit (grouped) | Judge | District | U.S. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Civil Rights | 47.1% | 34.5% | 13.0% | More |
| Other Statutes | 12.9% | 13.6% | 7.7% | More |
| Contract | 10.1% | 9.6% | 9.1% | More |
| Labor | 7.6% | 8.1% | 4.1% | More |
| Property Rights | 5.6% | 7.1% | 4.1% | More |
| Immigration | 5.1% | 4.1% | 3.1% | More |
| Torts - Personal Injury - Other | 4.1% | 5.0% | 5.9% | More |
| Prisoner Petitions | 3.0% | 6.6% | 15.6% | More |
| Torts - Personal Property | 1.8% | 2.1% | 1.4% | |
| Torts - Personal Injury - Product Liability | 1.3% | 1.1% | 30.5% |
Table 3: Distribution of Cases by Nature of Suit
Judge X's Closed Cases That Took The Longest Time
| Case # | Case Title | Nature of Suit | Closing Time (Days) | Closed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1:2015cv04579 | Cannon v. New York City Police Department et al | Civil Rights | 2753 | 22DEC22 |
| 1:2016cv01473 | Jane Jones 1 et al v. Annucci et al | Civil Rights | 2528 | 27JAN23 |
| 1:2016cv05080 | Campbell v. United States of America | Motions to Vacate Sentence | 2207 | 13JUL22 |
| 1:2017cv02257 | Rivera v. Kaplan | General Prisoner Petitions | 1971 | 19AUG22 |
| 1:2017cv04797 | Olaechea v. City Of New York, et al | Other Civil Rights | 1886 | 24AUG22 |
| 1:2018cv00126 | 99 Wall Development Inc. v. Allied World Specialty Insurance Company | Insurance | 1669 | 04AUG22 |
| 1:2018cv01755 | Pugh-Ouza v. Springhill Suites et al | Employment | 1617 | 01AUG22 |
| 1:2018cv01964 | Dr. U Devices v. Dr. Jean Devroye et al | Patent | 1611 | 02AUG22 |
| 1:2019cv00209 | Infinity Transportation MSN 6651, LLC v. Synergy Aerospace Corp. | Other Contract | 1557 | 14APR23 |
| 1:2018cv08999 | Vista Food Exchange, Inc. v. Comercial De Alimentos Sanchez S De R L De C.V. | Other Contract | 1442 | 13SEP22 |
| 1:2019cv05344 | Tutor Perini Building Corp. v. George Washington Bridge Bus Station Development Venture, LLC | Arbitration | 1436 | 12MAY23 |
| 1:2019cv06265 | Han v. Kunis Corporation et al | Employment | 1434 | 08JUN23 |
| 1:2018cv09709 | Heggs v. City of New York et al | Amer w/Disabilities - Other | 1394 | 16AUG22 |
| 1:2018cv11628 | Fischer v. Verizon New York, Inc. et al | Other Statutory Actions | 1358 | 31AUG22 |
| 1:2019cv06483 | J. Deal Partnership I, L.P. et al v. Teekay Offshore Partners, L.P. et al | Stockholders' Suits | 1348 | 21MAR23 |
| 1:2019cv07691 | Matos v. City of New York et al | Employment | 1333 | 10APR23 |
| 1:2019cv03529 | Chang v. United Healthcare et al | Employment | 1295 | 03NOV22 |
| 1:2019cv09842 | Tucker v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., | Amer w/Disabilities - Other | 1282 | 28APR23 |
| 1:2019cv03386 | Sagax Development Corp. v. ITrust S.A. | Other Contract | 1221 | 19AUG22 |
| 1:2019cv03291 | McManus et al v. Weichert | Administrative Procedure Act / Review or Appeal of Agency Decision | 1201 | 26JUL22 |
| 1:2020cv00800 | Yaakubov v. Equifax Information Services, LLC et al | Consumer Credit | 1183 | 26APR23 |
| 1:2019cv06928 | Martinez v. Uhler | General Prisoner Petitions | 1164 | 30SEP22 |
| 1:2019cv07971 | Anderson v. New York City Department of Finance | Employment | 1156 | 25OCT22 |
| 1:2020cv03588 | Shimanovsky v. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. | Other Fraud | 1104 | 16MAY23 |
| 1:2020cv03592 | Pearson v. New York City Department of Education et al | Employment | 1090 | 01MAY23 |
Table 4: Judge X's Closed Cases That Took The Longest Time