Hon. Maryellen Fitzmaurice See Rating Details

Supreme Court
Queens County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   1.6 - 3 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 6 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. Maryellen Fitzmaurice


Comments


Litigant

Comment #: NY5326
Rating:1.0
Comments:
The level of bias and corruption of this judge is an abomination to justice and America, playing the "Blame both Parents Game" for show, and then favoring the mother. If you believe a person can be "evil" rather than simply ignorant, immoral and the essence of degradation, then this judge is it.

Other

Comment #: NY3341
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Unfair, impatient, unprofessional, biased -against men, and Jews, does not care about children's best interest, does not allow witnesses in the courtroom, exercises power to throw people out of the courtroom, doesn't listen to both sides of a story,doesn't believe children should spend time with both parents-horribly unfair and nasty, too!

Litigant

Comment #: NY1405
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judicial Reports
212-766-3201
www.judicialreports.com

Justice Sped-Up is Justice Denied?

Strauss's court room keeps a tight schedule with a crowded docket, partly throught his push for pre-trial, in person conferences with attorneys---an alternative to costly trials & courtroom hearings. Two Queens matrimonial attorneys praised Strauss's ":efficient" courtroom, where he disposed of 394 cases in 2005.

Compare to the 2 other matrimonial judgesa in Queens, Strauss's disposition rate falls in the middle Two Queens Jeffrey D. Lebowitz disposed of 404 cases in 2005, while MARYELLEN FITZMAURICE disposed of 106. That same year, Strauss spent 242 days in the court room --- beating the citywide average of 211 by a month session.

www.judicialreports.com/2007/11hearing_loss.php

Litigant

Comment #: NY1404
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judicial Reports
published by the Institute for Judicial Studies
299 Broadway, suite #1315
NYC,NY 10007
QUEENS COUNTY
DIVORCE:
Shagoury vs Shagoury (April 3)
Seraphima Shagoury clearly despised her husband Stephen, & apparently, Justice Maryellen Fitzmaurice didn't like him much either. In a proceeding in which Seraph was suing for divorce on grounds that he had inflicted cruel & inhuman treatment on her, Judge Fitzmaurice "Impermissibly & repeatedly precluded the husband from eliciting relevant testimony in his defense, as well as in support of the factual allegations contained in his counterclaim, & thereby deprived him of a fair trial," the Appellate DSivision said. Though the evidence supported the judge's conclusiuon that Seraphima was entitled to a divorce for the reasons she cited, Fitzmaurice's injudicious treatment of the husband compelled the appellate panel to reverse her decision & send the case back to court for a new trial-- before a different judge

Litigant

Comment #: NY1403
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judicial Reports
published by the institute for Judicial Studies
299 Broadway,Suite#1315
NYC,NY 10007
Queens County
Rosenberg vs Rosenberg (Oct 30)
Divorce: Justice Maryellen Fitzmaurice is the only one who seems to think Aron Rosenberg need to be supervised during visits with his child, observed the Appellate Division in reversing her vistation order on grounds that it was unsupported by the record. Neither the forensic evaluator nor law guardian thought there was anything wrong with the existing arrangment, which included unsupervised visits and 2 overnights a week with the father. The child's therapist of 2 years recommended unsupvised visitsincluding 1 overnight a week. Even the mother, though she opposed overnight visitation, did not demand supervised visits. Fitzmaurice overrode all those opinions to allow the father to see his child only under supervision, at a "therapeutic program" selected by the mother, an arrangement that would remain in place for at least 3 yrs. A trial judge's findings about parental fittness are entitled to difference, the appellate panel observed, but not in this case."here, the flaws in the husband's charater & judgement cited by (Fitzmaurice)as necessitating supervised visitation were known by the professionals involved in the case, yet not one witness or porfessional reported mentioned concerns with the appropriatness of unsupervised visitation. Further, the child's close & loving relationship with her father was noted by 3 separate professionals"

Litigant

Comment #: NY1375
Rating:1.0
Comments:
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was CONFIRMED TODAY THAT SHE IS BACK IN QUEENS FAMILY COURT!!!!
ASSIGNED TO PART #14

NOW WE SHOULD ALSO KNOW AS TO WHY???
WAS IT A PENDING/COMPLETED INVESTIGATION BY DOJ?
BY FBI?
BY NYS CHIEF JUDGE'S
OFFICE?

BTW HER TERM IS UP JUNE 2010 !!!!

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY1209
Rating:1.8
Comments:
It seems that either Robing Room deleted REVERSAL #9 or I somehow overlooked it, or I mis-numbered it.
So this week's reversal will stand in as #9. Next week's resumes as #16.

REVERSAL #9:

Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
2006 NY Slip Op 51438(U) [12 Misc 3d 145(A)]
Decided on July 18, 2006
Appellate Term, Second Department
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_51438.htm

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY709
Rating:2.0
Comments:
Needs to retake Evidence.
A course in DRL would help too.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY224
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This judge is lazy and has favorite lawyers. She does not respect children and does not make sure that they get adequate child support or college expenses. This judge cannot try a case to save her life; it's time for this former Catholic high school teacher to go before she ruins more families and lives with her vindictive partisan attitude.