Hon. Marcy S. Friedman See Rating Details

Supreme Court
New York County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   3.7 - 6 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. Marcy S. Friedman


Comments


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY4313
Rating:4.3
Comments:
Was before her for oral argument on a civil litigation. I made a couple of filler arguments that were admittedly weak but she rolled her eyes around like a school-kid. More concerning was that in her decision on the record, after citing a 2 pronged standard that had to be satisfied in order for my adversay to be entitled to the relief sought, she correctly noted that prong 1 was satisfied and then promptly found for my adversdary with out any analysis or even mention of how the second prong was satisfied, even though it was absolutely crystal clear that the second prong was not remotely satisfied. If the issue was of greater importance, I would for sure appeal.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY3796
Rating:1.8
Comments:
Rude, volatile, abusive and impatient. Probably smart, but no temper for this job.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY2821
Rating:7.1
Comments:
Can be grouchy, but smart and reasonably hard working.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY1914
Rating:6.4
Comments:
Very tough and impatient but a very smart judge. She can get nasty with anyone at the drop of a hat, including her staff. But, having spent a week trying a case before her, you realize she's very bright and just wants to get down to business. Don't waste her time.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY1305
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Regardless of the summary ways she decides cases, she is impatient and rude to litigants in the courtroom. Her goal seems to be to dispose of cases as quickly as possible. Don't prepare too much for oral argument, she won't be listening! Extremely unpleasant experience.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY1058
Rating:1.5
Comments:
A litigant's worst nightmare: a judge who refuses to listen to what the lawyers have to say, but never takes the time to understand the issues. Not a patient bone in her body.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY594
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Nightmare trial judge, particularly dangerous in a medical malpractice case. Her personal scheduling is so erratic that she dragged out what should have been a 2-week trial into a month - just to get through the plaintiff's case! She shows up at 10:00am or 10:30am, takes one or two mornings off per week, etc. and held us over a day during jury trial (after we'd all arrived, with expert witnesses) because she had the sniffles. Totally clueless on the medicine as well. I don't think she tries to be unfair to plaintiffs, but the net effect is a prolonged, confused presentation that I think inherently works against the party with burden of proof. If you can, avoid her at all costs.