"The Robing Room: NY State Judges

Hon. Eileen Nadelson	See Rating Details
Civil Court
Kings (Brooklyn) County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 1.6 - 15 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 3.0 - 3 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. Eileen Nadelson

Comments

Other

Comment #: NY6034
Rating:7.0

Comments:
No way, she was a fair judge sitting in the civil part.

Other

Comment #: NY3242
Rating:1.0

Comments:
This judge doesn't seem to know the practices in civil Court as described in the notice that is sent out to defendants. Moreover, she is unkind, humiliating, and denigrating to people presenting testimony. It's as though she is trying to be Judge Judy. It is distasteful. Her arrogance and disdain are not merited and do not belong in a Court Room.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY1330
Rating:1.0

Comments:
NADELSON REVERSAL #23:

Great Wall Acupuncture v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.
2007 NY Slip Op 50862(U) [15 Misc 3d 136(A)]
Decided on April 24, 2007
Appellate Term, Second Department

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2007/2007_50862.htm

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY1266
Rating:1.0

Comments:
I haven't been able to maintain the series of Nadelson's reversals on a strictly weekly basis because there are so many of these cases that I simply can't keep up with them all.

In this week's case, we see once again Nadelson's lack of command over civil procedure. You have to understand, these are BASICS. She doesn't have a solid grasp of BASICS, stuff you should have learned long ago in law school, yet she somehow is a judge.

Crossbay Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
2007 NY Slip Op 27135 [15 Misc 3d 110]
Accepted for Miscellaneous Reports Publication
AT2
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, July 4, 2007
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2007/2007_27135.htm

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY1227
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Here we have yet another example of how ignorant Eileen Nadelson is about basic requirements for mailing, affidavits, etc. She's like a schoolkid taking a test who doesn't know the answer to a lot of the questions, so she just makes wild guesses.

REVERSAL #18:

Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v Allstate Indem. Co.
2006 NY Slip Op 52273(U) [13 Misc 3d 142(A)]
Decided on November 17, 2006
Appellate Term, Second Department

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_52273.htm

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY1225
Rating:1.0

Comments:
REVERSAL #17:
Midborough Acupuncture, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
2006 NY Slip Op 51879(U) [13 Misc 3d 132(A)]
Decided on October 2, 2006
Appellate Term, Second Department

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_51879.htm

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY1222
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
This week's case is notable in one unusual respect: the Appellate Term reversed two different Nadelson orders from two different cases on the very same day. That other case will be featured next week.

REVERSAL #16

Garcia v Nestle USA Inc.
2006 NY Slip Op 51880(U) [13 Misc 3d 132(A)]
Decided on October 2, 2006
Appellate Term, Second Department
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_51880.htm

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY1205
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Eileen Nadelson is an individual who, as a judge, has committed numerous injustices that ultimately require correction through appellate reversal. She is not fair, she is not impartial, nor is she is perceptive, or knowledgeable about the law. Just in this case, we see once again the Appellate Term teaching her law. She clearly lacks expertise to be a judge, yest she got in there anyway. Now she's TEACHING COURSES at the Bar? Nadelson proves, more than anyone else perhaps, that in NYC you don't have to know the law to be a judge.

REVERSAL #15:

A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
2006 NY Slip Op 51347(U) [12 Misc 3d 140(A)]
Decided on June 22, 2006
Appellate Term, Second Department

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_51347.htm

Civil Litigation - Govt.

Comment #: NY1197
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
In this week's case, her lack of knowledge of the law is once again exposed. It's almost as if the Appellate Term judges are schooling her like this were law school. But the most important thing is that there was fraud alleged and ol' Nadelson tried to pretend it didn't exist. But that's what a judge does, seek out the truth.

REVERSAL #14:

First Help Acupuncture P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co.
2006 NY Slip Op 51043(U) [12 Misc 3d 130(A)]
Decided on May 30, 2006
Appellate Term, Second Department
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_51043.htm

Civil Litigation - Govt.

Comment #: NY1184
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Here is another case where a wealthy insurance company gets away with it with help from Nadelson. The concurring judge in this memorandum was at a loss to understand why the defendant wouldn't comply with basic procedures. It's really very simple: in situations like this one, opposing counsel for the insurance company knows whose side the Nadelson is on and can count on Nadelson looking the other way with procedural faux pas and being biased in their favor. This, unfortunately, is how things often are in the lower courts, particularly with Nadelson.

REVERSAL #12:
Radiology Today P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co.
2006 NY Slip Op 50472(U) [11 Misc 3d 135(A)]
Decided on March 27, 2006
Appellate Term, Second Department
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_50472.htm

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY1181
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Here we go again with this disgracefully incompetent old woman. But is she more disgraceful than the system that allowed her onto the bench in the first place? Is it better to publicly demean a nobody like Nadelson than the powers that be that allow this sort of nonsense from her? Here, she couldn't handle a basic auto collision claims action.
REVERSAL #11:
Catanzaro v Jui Kuo Chou
2006 NY Slip Op 50251(U) [11 Misc 3d 128(A)]
Decided on February 21, 2006
Appellate Term, Second Department
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_50251.htm

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY1180
Rating:1.0

Comments:
And the hits just keep on coming!
REVERSAL #10:
Star Med. Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co.
2006 NY Slip Op 50245(U) [11 Misc 3d 128(A)]
Decided on February 14, 2006
Appellate Term, Second Department
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_50245.htm

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY1163
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Another case which brought out the anti-plaintiff, witch-yenta activist in Nadelson. It's one thing if the plaintiff is a scumlord landlord trying to evict a tenant. But these plaintiffs are ordinary folks cheated by rich insurance companies trying to bypass their statutory obligations.

REVERSAL #7:
Careplus Med. Supply Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co.
2005 NYSlipOp 51525(U)
Decided on September 20, 2005
Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided on September 20, 2005
Appellate Term, Second Department
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_51525.htm

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY1157
Rating:1.0

Comments:
This week's case reveals Nadelson's nutty biases against civil plaintiffs: the plaintiff in this case got screwed over by a wealthy company when they pulled the rug out from under him, and Nadelson immediately spilled tears for these rich defendants. Later on in this series, we'll see just how far Nadelson takes her improper actions as a judge when the civil proceeding also involves a parallel criminal proceeding over which she presides.

REVERSAL #6:
Steiner v Hartford Steam Boiler
2005 NYSlipOp 51272(U)
Decided on July 28, 2005
Appellate Term, Second Department

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_51272.htm

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY1144
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
It seems that REVERSAL #2 was deleted by robing room in all the confusion following their overzealousness in editing my postings of Old Yeller's reversals. So I'm resubmitting it now:

REVERSAL #2:
Montgomery Trading Co. v Cho
2004 NY Slip Op 50436(U)
Decided on May 12, 2004
Appellate Term, First Department

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2004/2004_50436.htm

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY1139
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
This week's case shows what happens when you put a judge on the bench who first started practicing law at age 45: Nadelson was called upon to decide a complicated legal issue, and it blew up in her face. While that is hardly unusual with her, what IS unusual is that her smarty-pants court attorney, Jeffrey Helewitz, never caught the error.

REVERSAL #5:
Deutsch Tane Waterman & Wurtzel, P.C. v Hochberg
2005 NYSlipOp 50573(U)Decided on April 19, 2005
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_50573.htm

Litigant

Comment #: NY1125
Rating:1.0

Comments:
This week's edition of Nadelson's reversals is
Schirmer Eng'g Corp. v U.S. Adj. Corp.,2004 NY Slip Op 51183(U).

In this case, Nadelson demonstrated an infirm understanding of basic civil procedure. It's tempting to speculate an abuse of discretion on her part, except for the fact that she is so clueless she might have screwed up anyway.

REVERSAL #4:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2004/2004_51183.htm

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY1107
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
The weekly series continues. This week's edition is Heyward v New Water St. Corp,
2004 NY Slip Op 50539(U)
Decided on May 27, 2004

REVERSAL #3
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2004/2004_50539.htm

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY1082
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
I don't particularly care for Robing Room removing or editing my comments about judge Nadelson. The public has a right to know about judges who are prejudiced party hacks/police sympathizers. Is there anything wrong with posting her appellate reversals online? I will resume the weekly series now. In this week's case, the Appellate Term judges ruled that judge Nadelson's dismissal of the Plaintiff's action based on the Plaintiff's allegedly insufficient pre-trial offer of proof was "procedurally infirm", since there was no statutory basis for such a ruling under the CPLR, and in any event the offer was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. That is a polite way of saying that Nadelson DOESN'T KNOW THE LAW.

REVERSAL #1

New York Life, Inc. v General Acc. Ins. Company of Am.
2003 NY Slip Op 51499(U)

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY1009
Rating:1.5

Comments:
I am glad that she is no longer sitting in the civil part and is now someone else's headache.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY806
Rating:1.3

Comments:
Her relative lack of gravitas, questionable legal acumen, suspect temperament and pro-DA inclination render her unqualified for this complex, demanding job.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY208
Rating:4.0

Comments:
Not well versed in criminal law, substantive or procedural. Works slowly, and frequently becomes annoyed with lawyers. Occasionally explodes in irrational outbursts at lawyers and defendants. Bail decisions incline strongly toward the defense; while this is a much-needed counterbalance to most judges, her individual decisions are not always well-founded.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY146
Rating:4.3

Comments:
Judge Nadelson can be more than a bit frustrating to appear in front of, but she seems to have fundamentally decent instincts. She does spend too much time repeatedly rehashing issues.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY83
Rating:1.4

Comments:
Might be one of the least intelligent judges I have encountered in 30+ years of this work.