"The Robing Room: NY State Judges

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. Maria S Vazquez-Doles

Comments

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY13152
Rating:1.3

Comments:
From a decision I just got which speaks for itself.
Defendant contends that this court overlooked defendant’s argument that their storm in progress defense did not require defendant “to prove that the storm was continuous and unbroken prior to the accident, but rather, the storm can be intermittent.”...In support of both of their arguments, as to whether there was or was not a storm in progress at the time of the incident, plaintiff and defendant each submitted expert affidavits which produced different conclusions as to whether it was precipitating at the time of the incident and therefore if there was a storm in progress. In its decision, the Court noted that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether a storm was in progress at the time of the incident.

This was on a motion to reargue.

Other

Comment #: NY10964
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Signed illegal divorce decree did not care what unethical attorneys did inside the court room. 28 U.S. Code §?453. Oaths of justices and judges.????