Hon. Diccia T. Pineda-Kirwan See Rating Details

Supreme Court
Queens County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   1.3 - 5 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 (will not be displayed)
   
Confirm E-mail Address      
Zip
Occupation

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




What others have said about Hon. Diccia T. Pineda-Kirwan


Comments


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY9200
Rating:2.3
Comments:
This judge is notable for unusual motion practice.

Upon submission of motion papers, the parties are ordered to appear for a settlement conference that takes anywhere from 3-7 hours. I have heard Queens central motion part folks chuckle when they hear that the motion papers are being sent to Long Island City (where the Judge sits).

The near full-day court appearance for simple motions begins with waiting to speak with the Judge's clerks, whose difficult job is to try to reach global settlement (even pre-answer in complex litigation). On paper, this sounds laudable, but in practice it just leads to economic inefficiencies and markedly increased costs to clients.

But now that you've sat through the appearance of 3-7 hours (you might not be called before lunch), your motion will surely be decided, right? Not so fast.

At least sometimes, it appears, the parties are asked to withdraw their motion because the court intends to deny it. Those with the temerity to refuse might just receive an order stating that the parties wasted the court's time by asking it to issue an (appealable) order.

The court also has or had pre-printed forms for "requesting" that the parties stipulate to give the court additional time to decide the motion (it seems designed to try and bypass the 60-day administrative guideline for issuing timely decisions but I cannot be certain).

On the one hand, the court seems to issue decisions on motions somewhat quickly. On the other hand, the court appears to resolve motions by first resorting to any minute technicality observable to avoid the substance. I'm talking about technicalities so minute, inconsequential or typographical that the Court appears to ignore CPLR 2001: "if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced, the mistake, omission, defect or irregularity SHALL BE DISREGARDED, provided that any applicable fees shall be paid" (emphasis added).

The overall effect of forcing parties to attend court for 6+ hours for any motion appears designed to deter parties from making motions, in my opinion. The overall effect of denying motions on non-prejudicial, technical grounds also seem designed to deter parties from making motions, in my opinion.

Overall, the court's herculean efforts to "settle" lawsuits may resolve some things. Again the goal is laudatory, but it seems to be treated as necessary practice even where it is useless. So, in practice it has only increased my litigation fees and therefore financially harmed my clients. The word martinet, in my opinion and admittedly limited experience, seems in my mind to be not far from the mark. The cherry on top is that I have also observed her being mean to attorneys.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY9164
Rating:1.0
Comments:
She is everything that is wrong with politics and government wrapped up in one dumpy package. Utterly unqualified to be a judge of any kind.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY9140
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Couldn't spell CAT if you gave her the C and A.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY9136
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Scraped from the bottom of the political barrel. A lazy, stupid disgrace to the bench and mankind.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY9135
Rating:1.0
Comments:
She's lazy. She's dumb as a hammer. She's nasty. And those are her good points! She's DPK, quite possibly the worst judge in New York State. Must be seen in action to be disbelieved.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY9065
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
This woman is afraid to make a decision, any decision on any issue at anytime. She is the only Judge I ever knew that ran her whole calendar with a view toward eliminating any possibility for a reversal. She is either very lazy or not that bright but it is probably both. As long as "Judges" like this continue to be employed our system of justice is in peril. She is a disgrace to the robe.