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.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]