Hon. William B. Rebolini See Rating Details

Supreme Court
Suffolk County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   6.1 - 2 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   4.0 - 3 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. William B. Rebolini


Comments


Litigant

Comment #: NY5951
Rating:1.0
Comments:
The law clerk is a power hungry loser who is a gross incompetent animal. The judge is never anywhere to be found and both should be fired, arrested and deported.

Other

Comment #: NY5950
Rating:1.0
Comments:
A complete fool who is a thief and belongs behind bars not in front of them.

Litigant

Comment #: NY4955
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
This judge has no concept of domestic violence issues, spousal litigation abuse, or the cost of litigation and its impact on the sole parent to provide for the child. He failed to provide even one-quarter of an award of legal fees, despite the other side's constant refusal to follow court orders, frivolous motions and failure to jail the offending party. He is a disgrace to the office, and should be summarily disrobed.

Litigant

Comment #: NY3129
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
This judge failed to read between the lines and took documents at face value. Somethings are not always as they appear and the defendants created quite an impressive illusion of smoke and mirrors that a seasoned judge should have seen through.

There was pure negligence, when you are presented with conflicting documentation and you fail to question the legitimacy of its content.

This case involved a convoluted work arrangement with the false appearance of an employee/employer relationship. Had the judge actually read the agreement between the two, he would have and should have questioned it.

Due process is not served when a judge is negligent and dismisses a case and condones the misappropriation of public funds when he actually acknowledges it as an accusation of "ONE TIME WASTE OF" public funds. One-time, is one too many times and had he heard all the evidence he would know that he only heard about one example, as there was more "WASTE" and misappropriation going on.

Obstruction of justice is when a judge can dismiss a case without hearing all the evidence or witness testimony.

The judge also failed to acknowledge that the plaintiff was offered a cash settlement for a signed release of all claims against the defendants. This is condoning that money can buy someone's silence. This is a dangerous practice and if the shoe were on the other foot and the plaintiff demanded money for their silence, that would be extortion.

Thank you Judge Rebolini for allowing the fox to remain in the hen house. Public funds are not safe when judges condone misuse of them and then tells the plaintiff that the whistleblower policy doesn't apply here.

If you see something, say something, but don't expect our judicial system to back you up.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY1219
Rating:2.5
Comments:
Relies on staff for everything. Litigated two cases that were resolved (1 by summary judgement by him one by a a plaintiff withdrawing) and I have yet to actually see him after several years of conferences. Simple cases don't get resolved and simple procedural issues become major headaches with regularity.