"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. Erin P. DeLabio

Comments

Other

Comment #: NY13003
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
If I could give 0 I would. Held up a support ruling via objection that was made illegally to begin with. Stated on record that financial affidavit was submitted to court when it was not. Completely re-wrote order to state that certain situations would continue as previous order, but wrote them as opposite of what the previous order stated. Allowed a custody to case to repeatedly be adjourned waiting for other party to provide documentation, for over a year, until minor was aged out, which allowed abusive parent to retain custody. Poor, poor decision making.

Litigant

Comment #: NY12898
Rating:3.0

Comments:
Improperly issued protective order on an entirely hearsay and double hearsay affidavit, with petitioners long history of dismissed unfounded protective orders. Got very flustered in court. Prior to start of conferences on a custody petition, held ex-parte discussions with attorneys while I was self represented, inappropriately. Held argument on matters not yet transferred to her. Could not determine correctly "who filed first" and who filed in family court vs. supreme on a merged matter. Left two contentious litigants where false DV allegations abound alone in a open skype chat together while counsel was in conferenece.