Joanna Seybert

She doesn't always seem to "get" the arguments and in one case she took almost a year to approve a settlement which was really difficult for all parties involved. Overall I think she's a well meaning judge who makes fair decisions and is practical-minded and I've enjoyed appearing before.

It is distressing that a Federal Judge can be so ignorant of basic legal concepts.

Very good judge, very fair, works pretty hard, very little bias, can be too indulgent of long winded counsel, can take too long to decide issues but usually gets it right or close enough in the end.

Unfortunately this incompetent judge presided in the case of the State of NY & DEC against BB&S Lumber, Speonk, NY which sought to apportion responsibility for arsenic contamination resulting in site being placed on Superfund list. She never even asked who was responsible for the day to day operations of a small lumberyard. Her decision cost the taxpayers of NY who had to foot the bill for the cleanup $5.9 million.

Terrible on evidentiary rulings

This judge is a fool, plain and simple. She disregards the law as a sort of personal hobby. She has ruined my client's life in a civil litigation. In her opinion it is "trademark infringement" to take a picture of what you are selling and post it on a website.

Disappointed over her complete interest in legal argumentation. Citing to cases in order to urge your point of view is a waste of time; she wings it, not without judgment and insight, but on anything other than dispositive motions, legal research is mainly a waste of time.

Judge Seybert was fair and reasonable in her sentencing of this white collar tax case. It appears that she reviewed all the information that she was given in detail and her ruling felt appropriate to us even though it included a period of incarceration. She was willing to go below the sentencing guidelines due to the changes this person has made in his life.

She allowed a party not to come to their own scheduled hearing and conducted the proceedings with a pro se litigant. The defending party's attorney who scheduled a hearing actually failed to appear and yet they were given considerable leeway.

She does not want to apply statutes and case laws decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and 2nd Circuit and has departed from them without any rational basis for the same, clearly siding with corporations. While the doctrine of laches does not apply to statutory claims, she has applied the same to case No.2006-3199 and has accepted a release when the defendants have failed to establish its extence, validity and enforceability in favor of corporations. See Alexander v. Denver Gardner and Oubre.

An extremely hardworking judge. Rulings are not predictable, nor mutual or even-handed. She seems to play favorites with one side over the other, and bends over backward to accommodate that side.

Judge Seybert is an extremely fair judge. I speak for myself as I was sentenced by her in 1999. She basically gave me what I was entitled to within the guidelines. She is well known for being very generous in downward departures if the defendant is entitled to it.

I have several criminal cases before Judge Seybert including a six-week controlled substances trial and a death penalty case. While Judge Seybert leans towards the government on evidentiary and discovery rulings, she is generally fair. In my experience, Judge Seybert has been receptive to defense arguments for departures and non-guideline sentences. After taking over a case from another judge, she granted a discovery motion which led to the government's motion to dismiss the most serious charges. Although my client went to trial and was convicted, Judge Seybert sentenced him fairly. In the capital case, Judge Seybert approved our requests for funds to thoroughly investigate the case which led to the government withdrawing its notice of intent to seek the death penalty. At sentencing, she sua sponte sentenced him below the sentence provided in the plea agreement.

A listening judge who doesn't pretend to "Know it all." She runs a very accomodating chambers and is a really wonderful human being. She understands real people and she tries to be fair. She is especially good with people who are trying to overcome limitations. I have yet to get a within Guideline sentence with her since Booker. She has regularly tried to find reasons to depart and will not blindly follow the presentence report. Does suffer fools (a real distinction from most federal judges) and goes out of her way to make the experience a good one. Let's you educate her, even though she has great instincts. Does tend to side with the government pre-trial but gives a really fair trial and is very good with evidentiary rulings. Also plays it fair. One of, if not my Favorite Judge.

She is a liberal judge that cost me tons of money

Tends to favor the government in complex cases and is very hard sentencer after trial

Very fair and open minded - can be tough on defendants who go to trial, especially in white collar cases.

The court's evidentary rulings are unpredictabe. If the court doesn't like your client she can and will wreck havoc on the presentation. Not a scholar. Pro government in criminal and pro defense in civil.

Joanna is one of two of the fairest judges I have known in all my years of practice.

I have had two cases before her. She is a pleasant and thoughtful judge who tries to do the right thing.