"The Robing Room: NY State Judges

Hon. Mary H. Smith	See Rating Details
Supreme Court
Rockland County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 2.5 - 12 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 1.0 - 2 rating(s)	Please send me alerts on this judge E-mail Address:

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. Mary H. Smith

Comments

Other

Comment #: NY12105
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Ignorant, personality disordered individual. Outright abusive of Rights and power.

Other

Comment #: NY12104
Rating:1.0

Comments:
This woman needs to be removed. Her thinking is circuitous and illogical. She hands down violently inappropriate sentences, has been censured more than once and needs to be removed once and for all. It’s absolutely irresponsible on the part of the judicial community to allow her to continue to exist in the public trust in any way.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY9230
Rating:1.0

Comments:
The comments here are way too kind. She is a disaster who thinks she is brilliant. She objects more than the defense atty and constantly, improperly puts her 2 cents (which is not even worth that much) in.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY9037
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Becomes easily frustrated, takes long breaks, gets flustered, face goes pale, gets red, goes pale again, looses her cool, clears the courtroom, apologizes, does it all again, mugs in front of the jury, appears markedly worse after lunch. Many pathologies at work here. Despite being reversed and disciplined, she is apparently protected. Cynical, angry, confused. Past 70, shes in her re-certification years. Flordia awaits!

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY8597
Rating:1.6

Comments:
Landlord/ tenant $50,000
This person is the living embodiment of ineptitude and malfeasance.She did not permit presentation of the case and each and every statements was met by a barrage of interruptions, questions, and unsolicited revelations, all this with an unpleasantness bordering on arrogance. Though the judge conceded that the defendant owed a huge sum of backrent (by his own admission) she pushed for a settlement of a dollar amount derived at by some mysterious and unfathomable process before any specific facts and figures could be presented.
When I refused to close the case because the larger matter of property damage had not been discussed, she took an abrupt about face, and actually DISMISSED the case. Not a single question had been exchanged between parties nor was any evidence allowed to be presented.
This person is not well, certainly should not be sitting on the bench and would do us all a great service by returning to the planet which ousted her.
More work for the appelate division.

Civil Litigation - Govt.

Comment #: NY8554
Rating:1.9

Comments:
Just appeared before this Judge, and she was truly awful. Bias toward party, tried to claim she would bring me up on a grievance due to untrue and baseless allegations of opposing counsel, only to rule I was correct, and much too more to list here. Incompetence at the highest level.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY8412
Rating:2.9

Comments:
On a recent trial this judge inappropriately interrupted opening statements, interfered with direct examinations, failed to read and understand pre-trial submissions, reversed herself on several occasions on rulings, failed to comprehend the most basic of trial law and belittled counsel in front of the jury and parties.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY5149
Rating:2.1

Comments:
This judge is a bad combination of stupidity and arrogance. She does such a terrible job at the trial level that she is a heavy burden on the appellate level, who are forced to be correcting her screw-ups all of the time. This wastes judicial resources.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY5009
Rating:9.8

Comments:
This judge is brilliant, scholarly and punctual. She is right on the law.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY4890
Rating:1.3

Comments:
Look up the definition of "judicial incompetence" and up pops a photo of Judge Mary Smith. One must presume that she is the product of a family that swam only in the shallow end of an overly-chlorinated gene pool. She is so dense that light bends around her. But she is a gift to appellate attorneys, since she could rule two different ways on the same issue and still be wrong both times. Often in error but never in doubt. One of the stupidest specimens to ever walk erect.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY4113
Rating:2.8

Comments:
I think she tries to do well, but is very weak on the law (have cases for everything, and still its 50-50 if she will follow them).
Most seriously, makes inappropriate comments on the evidence, witnesses and her views of the case in front of the Jury.
Can be vindictive (as another commentor has noted) if you develop "bad chemistry" on rulings.
If assigned to this part: be prepared to settle, or appeal.

Litigant

Comment #: NY3041
Rating:2.0

Comments:
Grotesquely incompetent! An automatic Appeal.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY1626
Rating:1.1

Comments:
In my 30 years as a litigator, both civil and criminal I can honestly state that I have never appeared before a Judge with less knowledge, temperment or judicial demeanor. That is coming from someone who won their case before her, had her set aside the verdict, then had her reversed in the 2nd Dept. She is no stranger to the App. Div.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY1558
Rating:2.3

Comments:
I have never practiced before such an incompetent and vindictive Judge She tries to muscle a settlement and then is vindictive when a settlement offer is refused She is totally inept intellectually She actually thought that a "replevin" action was part of the case( It was never mentioned by anyone but her)

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY770
Rating:2.6

Comments:
I shook my head many times, thinking that she actually did go to law school. She let one piece of documentary evidence in for the sole reason that she had been "married to a doctor for 20 years" so she knew what it meant.