"The Robing Room: NY State Judges

Hon. Karen B. Rothenberg	See Rating Details
Supreme Court
Richmond (Staten Island) County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 3.4 - 12 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: - 0 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. Karen B. Rothenberg

Comments

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY13602
Rating:2.0

Comments:
Disrespectful and racist. Favors developers over the "small man". Incompetent and without heart. Will be happy when she is no longer on the bench

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY12983
Rating:1.0

Comments:
For a person with such an interesting and qualified background, it is unfortunate that for all that, Judge Rothenberg does not appear to follow the law. Her opinions in my experience are short, off based and clearly intended to favor one side. I have only dealt with her on a few discovery and motion practice issues so she could be better in other areas but in my experience, Judge Rothenberg has no compunction flouting the law with little to no articulated rationale.

This attorney urges that Judge Rothenberg never be considered for a higher court. She is precisely the sort of judge whom the appellate courts are designed to constrain.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY10886
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
I have 2 related and long running cases in Judge Rothenberg's part. Politically, she is not the best judge for me, but I too am horrified at some of the comments below. She is courteous, practical, well organized, allows people the chance to present their arguments, has responded to claimed "emergencies" well, and has a very good law secretary. Win or lose, we got quality, well reasoned decisions. I don't rate judges by whether they rule in my favor but rather by whether I had a fair day in court.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY10779
Rating:8.0

Comments:
Even though she did not find in my favor I think Judge Rothenberg was a very good judge, was courteous and flexible and allowed both sides every opportunity to present their arguments. A pleasure to appear before.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY10611
Rating:9.9

Comments:
I have been trying cases for almost 40 years, and have never participated in an online judicial survey before. However, having just completed a complex jury trial before this judge, I could not let the previous comments go unchallenged. Contrary to what I have seen written on this site, Justice Rothenberg was a superb trial judge on my case. She is bright, fair, impartial and hard-working. She was fully engaged in the trial and the issues. She showed the utmost respect, courtesy and patience to the attorneys and the litigants. Her trial rulings (some of which I won, some of which I lost) were always based upon the law and the evidence. Her courtroom temperament was excellent. While I can explain away the critical comments on this site made by disappointed litigants, I am at a loss to understand the comments by the attorneys. She is the complete opposite of the adverse comments I have read here.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY9692
Rating:1.5

Comments:
Completely incompetent judge. Rules without reading papers and whoever is the best and loudest person getting her ear will win. She must be removed from the bench as she is doing an injustice to litigants. Why does Justice Knipel not do something about this Justice who should not be deciding motions because she has no interest in reading the papers. How can she decide the fate of a lawsuit and not issue a written decision explaining her basis for dismissing a case or deciding an issue. This is very bad

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY9561
Rating:2.1

Comments:
I have never had an experience like I had before this judge in 40 years as a litigator. She was sarcastic, dismissive, biased, unprepared and uninterested in learning. First, she engaged in snickering with opposing counsel at the expense of my client (and me). Then she accepted factual assertions by opposing counsel that were not in the papers, but rebuffed all my factual statements on the basis - prompted to her by opposing counsel - that if I had any proof, I would have submitted an expert affidavit. This was for a simple proposition - that cutting holes in the roof can create leaking issues - that does not require any more expertise than the ability to drive a hammer. Finally, she interrupted my explanation and then accused me of talking over her. And as the other comments notes, she NEVER reads the papers and then rules from the bench with no explanation and directs counsel to prepare a "short-form order". I would very much like to hear from other attorneys who have had similar experiences.

Litigant

Comment #: NY8939
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
This woman is judge by mistake. She accept wrong decision without reading Petition and refuses to protect poor people who are deceived by NYS and NYC governments service main officials.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY8911
Rating:1.1

Comments:
In a case of mine that she presided over, I debated for years whether any sitting judge could conceivably by that incompetent as opposed to intentionally biased. I believed one could not pass the NYS Bar, let alone be confirmed as a judge with so little understanding of the law, thus suggesting that she was intentionally issuing nonsensical rulings. Other colleagues argued, however, that it was conceivable that she just didn't understand the basic rules of law. Either way, she's a disgrace to the Bench and I believe should be removed from the Bench. Have never in 30 years of practicing, expressed that view about any other Member of the Bench. Disgraceful.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY8903
Rating:1.0

Comments:
I should add the Judge refused to read Petition of Pro Se litigant, made illegal opinion about motion to certify class action and dismissed case and motion from the bench without pay attention to document submitted by Petitioner with formal hearing of respondents' lawyers and with whole neglecting to petitioner's oppositions to those lawyers'answerings to dismiss the case.

Litigant

Comment #: NY8902
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Judge refused to protect benefit rights of all NYS government benefit recipients whose benefit legal rights were rudely violated by Respondents for many years.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY8178
Rating:1.0

Comments:
What an absolutely scary experience. The Judge had not read the papers, was flippant, and dismissed the case from the bench, with NO OPPOSITION submitted by the pro se defendant that admittedly owed thousands of dollars to our client. No record was made and to add insult to injury she demanded that we write a short form order for her dismissing our case. This is literally what you get when you elect a political hack to the bench.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY5081
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Moving a calendar quickly does not make you a fit judge. She is a "cold" bench, never educated on the papers or the issues, not knowledgeable on any complex legal issues, and she plays favorites, siding with the lawyer from the bigger firm or with a bank for a client. What is worse, she seems to never have practiced law before taking the bench.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY4517
Rating:4.4

Comments:
Judge Rothenberg is a nice lady who simply wishes to dispose of cases by ruling from the bench. This sounds great in theory, but the problem is that she does not read the papers prior to oral argument. As such, she reaches decisions which are based upon error and does not adequately apply the law to the facts. As other comments note, she could be a great judge if she simply was willing to read the papers and understand the issues more fully before ruling.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY3843
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
The comment about oral arguments is spot on. She does not read the papers and does not know the law. She will rule in favor of the best talker not the correct talker.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY3751
Rating:4.6

Comments:
Nobody would ever accuse this judge of being the hardest worker in the courthouse. Defense oriented but does not kill plaintiffs. All things being equal, she will side with the defense on close calls. Nice person but not strong enough on the law. She could be an outstanding judge if she worked harder.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY2806
Rating:4.2

Comments:
This judge does not read papers. Ever. She hears oral arguments and simply rules in favor of whichever attorney makes the most noise.