Hon. Mary H. Smith See Rating Details

Supreme Court
Rockland County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   3.1 - 7 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   2.0 - 1 rating(s)
Please send me alerts on this judge
E-mail Address:

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address (will not be displayed)
Confirm E-mail Address      

Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.

General Rating Criteria

* Temperament (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Scholarship (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Industriousness (1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
* Ability to Handle Complex Litigation (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Punctuality (1=Chronically Late,10=Always on Time)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling (1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)

Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions (1=Not at all Involved, 10=Very Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)

Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation (1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions (1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination (1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintiff)

What others have said about Hon. Mary H. Smith


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY5149
This judge is a bad combination of stupidity and arrogance. She does such a terrible job at the trial level that she is a heavy burden on the appellate level, who are forced to be correcting her screw-ups all of the time. This wastes judicial resources.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY5009
This judge is brilliant, scholarly and punctual. She is right on the law.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY4890
Look up the definition of "judicial incompetence" and up pops a photo of Judge Mary Smith. One must presume that she is the product of a family that swam only in the shallow end of an overly-chlorinated gene pool. She is so dense that light bends around her. But she is a gift to appellate attorneys, since she could rule two different ways on the same issue and still be wrong both times. Often in error but never in doubt. One of the stupidest specimens to ever walk erect.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY4113
I think she tries to do well, but is very weak on the law (have cases for everything, and still its 50-50 if she will follow them).
Most seriously, makes inappropriate comments on the evidence, witnesses and her views of the case in front of the Jury.
Can be vindictive (as another commentor has noted) if you develop "bad chemistry" on rulings.
If assigned to this part: be prepared to settle, or appeal.


Comment #: NY3041
Grotesquely incompetent! An automatic Appeal.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY1626
In my 30 years as a litigator, both civil and criminal I can honestly state that I have never appeared before a Judge with less knowledge, temperment or judicial demeanor. That is coming from someone who won their case before her, had her set aside the verdict, then had her reversed in the 2nd Dept. She is no stranger to the App. Div.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY1558
I have never practiced before such an incompetent and vindictive Judge She tries to muscle a settlement and then is vindictive when a settlement offer is refused She is totally inept intellectually She actually thought that a "replevin" action was part of the case( It was never mentioned by anyone but her)

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY770
I shook my head many times, thinking that she actually did go to law school. She let one piece of documentary evidence in for the sole reason that she had been "married to a doctor for 20 years" so she knew what it meant.