I was dismayed to see your reporter's unwarranted attack on a member of our judiciary in your May 13, 2019 edition of the Law Journal, “Observers Say Repeated Reversals of One Queens Judge Reveal Unfair, Insular Culture.” The article questions the competence and impartiality of Justice Steven Paynter, suggesting that the rate of reversal of his decisions is grossly disproportionate to other judges. This is simply not so.

First, the article's characterization of Justice Paynter's reversal rate, which it puts at 32%, is highly misleading.  Justice Paynter had a total of twelve suppression decisions reversed out of the 820 hearings he conducted, or 1.5%, hardly the inflated figure cited in the article.

Second, the article compares the judge's reversal rate to the overall reversal rate at the Second Department, which it cites as no higher than 5.2%. But the overall reversal rate includes all uncontested Anders briefs and excessive sentence motions, which are both numerous and routinely denied.  A more apt comparison would be to the judge who previously presided over the suppression hearing part. Justice Joseph Grosso, who never worked as a prosecutor, was reversed eighteen times in suppression cases in a similar period of time. Using your reporter's statistical method, this reflects a reversal rate of 27%, seriously diminishing any distinction between these two judges performing similar duties. Nor is this rate unusual; the overall reversal rate for all appellate divisions in suppression cases from 2014 through 2018 is approximately 25%.

Sadly, I have to question why the Law Journal would go out of its way to mount such a dubious attack on a sitting judge, citing anonymous “observers” in support of its unwarranted conclusion. The only observer, other than outside commentators who have never practiced before Justice Paynter, is a defense attorney who brought an Article 78 proceeding where the Appellate Division upheld Justice Paynter's ruling.

Your reporter also failed to contact this office for comment, although it has been a party to every one of Justice Paynter's decisions. We do not always agree with the judge sitting in the suppression part, and although the People's ability to appeal adverse suppression rulings is greatly restricted by statute, we have not hesitated to appeal when we felt it appropriate. We recognize, however, that these judges work tirelessly addressing difficult issues in a constantly shifting legal environment. Attacking a judge who readily takes on this difficult task and groundlessly impugning his motives is inappropriate, particularly because the judges' ethical rules prevent them from directly defending themselves.

John M. Ryan is the acting district attorney in Queens.