"The Robing Room: NY State Judges

Hon. Laura Visitacion-Lewis	See Rating Details
Supreme Court
Queens County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 1.7 - 4 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: - 0 rating(s)	Please send me alerts on this judge E-mail Address:

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address ()

* *

Confirm E-mail Address

* * *

Zip

Occupation

Add a comment only

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)

Comments

Please type what you see below:

Not an even number!

What others have said about Hon. Laura Visitacion-Lewis

Comments

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY8454
Rating:3.3

Comments:
I remember when this judge was appointed as a criminal judge and heard misdemeanors. She wasn't bad. Then years later, she came into the guardianship part and either the subject matter got to her or she had just had enough of being on the bench and started sanctioning all these lawyers. It was really amazing to see. I had her on one case where there were no problems except she insisted that I had the ward's assets in the wrong account. It was not; it simply was not. I had been using that account for years and it was known by other judges, yet for some reason she had it in her head her own mini-rules. I hate to say it, but was glad the ward died shortly thereafter - she was demented in a nursing home and had no life. Really, I was afraid to do anything on the case. It made me decide never to do a guardianship case ever again. It was like she was conducting a witchhunt everytime you had any dealings with her. I am glad they moved her to Queens before I submitted my final accounting.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY7809
Rating:1.1

Comments:
Both lazy and incompetent - not a winning combination. Throw her arrogance into the mix and she hits the trifecta of awfulness.

Civil Litigation - Govt.

Comment #: NY6227
Rating:1.1

Comments:
Biased. Not intellectually competent. Disrespectful to counsel.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY5082
Rating:1.3

Comments:
There is nothing good to say about this judge's conduct towards lawyers from the bench. Please send her back to Family Court where she can berate deadbeat dads instead of lawyers. She does not read the papers, is not knowledgeable about the law, appears never to have practiced, and merely picks the lawyer that she likes best instead of ruling properly on the issues.