"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. Kimberley Slade Moser

Comments

Other

Comment #: NY13528
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Pro-landlord, anti-Tenant. Abusive. Capable of screaming and intimidating tactics.
[Redacted by Ed.].
Whereas all NYC counties have multiple, rotating Housing Court referees,
Referee Kimberly Slade is the only presiding referee in Richmond County
i.e. Unconstitutional monopoly on law.

Main law firm litigating at Richmond housing part: Duskin & Crowe Attorney Law Firm
1688 Victory Blvd., Staten Island, NY 10314 [Redacted by Ed.].

Family Court Judge Karen B. Wolff is [Redacted by Ed.].

Duskin & Crowe Attorney Law Firm appears before Housing referee, Kimberley Slade, virtually,
every day, receiving preferential and favorable treatment, whereas a party is not represented by them.
The referenced above parties are friends, creating a conflict of interest.

Kimberley Slade screams at self-represented if they appear for OSC w/o witnesses intimidating them
and blocking any Discovery, denying it by all means.

During trial, unilaterally, protects Duskin & Crow by allowing them not to produce required documents,
sustaining their objections when evidence vs. their client is produced, refuses to enter that evidence
on record, disregards laws requiring adherence to CFR Section 8
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-24/subtitle-B/chapter-IX/part-982#p-982.310(e)
without authority under color of law.

Completely disregards the Federal law:
Title 24 Housing and Urban Development Part / Section
Subtitle B Regulations Relating to Housing and Urban Development 100 – 4199
Chapter IX Office of Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development 900 – 1699
Part 982 Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance: Housing Choice Voucher Program

Prohibits the Clerks in the basement to allow pro-se to file Jury Demands, allowed by the above CFR.
Conducts sham 'trials' disregarding any, documented violations committed by landlords represented by Duskin & Crow, including the HPD Inspection violations.
Refuses to award or admit on record damages sustained by tenants due to breaches of warranty of habitability.
Needs to be exposed to abuse of law and discretion while on duty.

One of complaints how Duskin & Crow attrns. treat tenants who seek their assistance.

https://www.bbb.org/us/ny/staten-island/profile/lawyers/the-law-firm-of-duskin-crowe-0121-2863/customer-reviews#1908952265

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY7546
Rating:1.6

Comments:
Handled a relatively simple matter on which the law is very clear. My adversary, a regular in that court, essentially did not have to even make any arguments -- this judge did it for him. Was pretty obvious from her demeanor, rudeness to me and entire lack of even handedness, this would go against me and against clear law. I'd even think that if she were going to show such bias, she would have been a little less obvious for purposes of the record.