District
19 reviews
Judge Daniels seems to have a history of making power plays in search of a legal theory. He clearly must have been sleeping during his first year at Yale. The man is not a deep thinker and in numerous cases has shown favoritism in lieu of intelligent legal opinions.
Daniels is extremely biased, painfully slow and unable to comprehend and process complex litigation. His interpretation of the law is so flawed it beggars belief that he even knows the law. He should never be assigned civil litigation. Hopefully he will leave soon.
~I'm flabbergasted to see any positive thoughts on this man. He's mean spirited, lazy, vindictive and is the paradigm for what politically appointed judges are all about. Thank goodness he is senior status as their will be fewer litigants that he'll be inflicted upon. It will be a fabulous day when he's off the bench.
We had an awful time in Judge Daniels' court - from overriding common practices to actually flaunting the rules around dismissal, he sided with the big corporation lawyer at every turn. A fair proceeding would not have been so one-sided. He misinterpreted the meaning of industry specific terminology and essentially overlooked the essence of the case on his way to a convenient dismissal.
I've been before Judge Daniels several times, starting since his appointment. He is a joy to appear before, even if he is giving you a hard time. I've never had a trial before him. To his credit, he did not give short shrift to the other side in a motion to dismiss, even though it was just a matter of trimming the fat. You can have a conversation with him during argument - so be prepared - he has a response, proper or a bit glib. But he'll make a sharp decision or make it clear where he is going or whether he thinks the case is shitty and should immediately be settled for less than you had hoped for.
I wonder how in the world this would be judge came to decide that Iran had anything to do with 911. I would suggest he check out engineers and architects for 911 truth to educate himself although I suspect with the Zionist nazzi Schumer having anything to do with his appointment he is bought and sold to the Zionist and unfit for his job.
Judge Daniels admittedly did not read the papers in a highly complex case beyond a perfunctory review of a reply brief. Despite best efforts to explain the law, he took no interest and ruled directly contrary to the law as briefed, as even my adversary acknowledged on the record to some degree. Subsequent efforts to spoon-feed the law in keeping with his requests did not help. Extremely disappointing.
really good trial judge -- cuts right to the heart of the evidentiary issues; let's everyone try their case but also knows what is proper and not proper - again, excellent trial judge
Reads the papers, fair, thoughtful, but wont tolerate BS. Smart. Was NYC Corporation Counsel. I like the man.
This judge is unable to comprehend complex issues. While he may do alright in criminal cases, he tends to rule with extreme political bias in civil matters. His attempts to create law from the bench make litigation in New York a confusing, political minefield. He either has a publicist on retainer or chooses to rule in a manner that will garner the most press. Our experience with this judge was the most disappointing of any in our forty year business history. Litigation is often the cost of doing business and we can take a loss, but the lack of competence with this judge was daunting.
Judge Daniels gets an unfair rap in these anonymous ratings. He may be a little heavy handed in the sentencing arena, but he is an industrious, intelligent jurist who wants to do the right thing and generally does.
Slow to render decisions and does not respond to correspondence to the court. If you are representing yourself pro se, you are out of luck.
Based on my experience Judge Daniels gets a bad deal on his reviews. I find him to be very street smart and attentive. Doesn't play hide the ball and doesn't suffer foolishness gladly. I'd rather be before him on a case where my position is sound than before half a dozen or more of his colleagues.
Horrible Judge. He did not even read the facts in my case before issuing his ruling. I heard he has a lot of pending cases but why should the litigants suffer? He should be removed from the bench.
He is a textbook case as to why Judicial reform is necessary. His rulings appear to be political instead of being consistant with the law of land.
Very slow, although he has gotten better in recent years. Uses his common sense. Tries to get it right and generally comes close enough.
Not particularly clear or articulate when on the Bench, but the meandering doesn't mean that he doesn't get to the correct. His published opinions reflect better informed and sharper focus. Slow in responding to communications to Chambers and in formalizing Orders, but he has also been promptly decisive when he turns to a matter. Has a good feel for the difference between giving a party a fair hearing and being unduly indulgent.
Not known for his promptness.
Will not decide fairly motions, even after years. Communications with the Court are usually unanswered. Asking for the resolution of pending motions may result in the decision going against you. Avoid if possible!