Where the numbers come from, how each one is calculated, and what it does and does not say.
Trial judges carry up to nine metrics, each defined below. Appellate judges will carry a different set, which we will publish with their profiles.
The seven judges are tracked by how they vote across areas of law, and only in cases where they did not all agree.
Judges are selected at county level, so that is the comparison we focus on. You can switch to court or statewide.
A metric is not applicable when the judge does not appear in the data used to calculate it. A metric is zero when the judge does appear, but has no instances of the behavior that metric measures.
Where the name, court, county, selection method and term dates on every judge page come from.
What it is: Basic information about each judge, including their name, court, county, method of selection (appointment or election), and term dates.
Why it's relevant: This foundational information provides the context necessary to understand a judge’s jurisdiction, role, and time on the bench. It also helps users interpret other metrics in light of when and where the judge served.
We source these details primarily from the New York State Unified Court System’s official Judicial Directory. However, that directory is sometimes incomplete or out of date. Some judges are missing entirely; others have inaccurate or outdated records. When official sources fall short, we supplement this information with public reporting, archival records, and tips from trusted observers.
Dataset details: Synthesized from the New York State Unified Court System’s Judicial Directory, disclosures provided by the Office of Court Administration in response to a Freedom of Information request, and supplemented by independent research. Both the Judicial Directory and the OCA data contain inaccuracies; Scrutinize has corrected these errors whenever identified.
Each metric shows a pattern in a judge’s decisions and what it meant for the people in front of them. Read any one of them as part of a judge’s whole record, alongside the report and the context behind it.
Open a metric for how it is calculated, what it is based on, which judges it ranks, and how far back the data goes.
What it is: The rate at which judges choose to make their written decisions publicly and freely available through a state database.
Why it's relevant: This metric quantifies the transparency of a judge's work and helps assess the public's ability to review their judicial decisions.
In New York, judges have discretion over whether to publish their decisions in a state database. This choice directly impacts the transparency of their work and the public's ability to assess their judicial reasoning. A higher publication rate indicates a judge who more frequently makes their decisions available for public scrutiny. This transparency is crucial for accountability, as it allows the public, researchers, and other stakeholders to review and analyze the judge's legal reasoning and decision-making patterns. It also provides valuable insights for attorneys preparing cases and for individuals seeking to understand how laws are interpreted and applied.
Ranking: Based on all current judges. Rates are per judge-year on the bench since 2013.
Dataset details: 2013 to the last full calendar year. The publication rate only includes decisions accessible through the Law Reporting Bureau state database, not those accessible through the state's e-filing system or paid services.
Further reading: Open Criminal Courts, a report by Scrutinize and Reinvent Albany.
What it is: The percentage of cases where appellate courts overturned a judge’s suppression rulings because they determined the rulings did not protect the constitutional rights of the defendant.
Why it's relevant: When police obtain evidence in violation of constitutional rights—for instance, by searching someone's home without a warrant—judges must decide whether to "suppress" (exclude) that evidence from trial. Appellate courts rarely overturn these rulings, showing great deference to trial judges' assessments of police testimony and factual findings. Therefore, when appellate judges do reverse a suppression ruling, it indicates that the judge erred by failing to protect the defendant's constitutional rights.
The suppression reversal rate is calculated by dividing the number of times appellate courts reversed a judge’s suppression rulings by the total number of appeals from that judge’s cases in which suppression issues were discussed. To find this denominator, we search all criminal appeallate decisions for words indicating suppression. The metric allows for comparison of judges' records while accounting for differences in how often their rulings are reviewed on appeal.
Ranking: Based on current trial-level judges who presided over criminal cases during the years covered by our dataset, as established by appellate decisions naming them in criminal appeals, their publication of criminal trial decisions in that period, and judicial directory records showing service in criminal court during at least one year of the dataset window.
Dataset details: 2007 to the last full calendar year.
Further reading: Unprotected, a report by Scrutinize.
What it is: The number of times appellate courts have found a judge’s sentence “excessive” or “unduly harsh” and the total years they have removed from those sentences. This metric only measures sentence reductions after trial; it excludes reductions following guilty pleas.
Why it's relevant: These rare findings, made by panels of 2-5 appellate judges, indicate that the judge was unusually severe in their sentencing decisions.
Excessive sentences are a clear signal from higher courts that a lower court judge's sentencing decision was exceptionally punitive. When an appellate court reduces a sentence "in the interest of justice," it's effectively overriding the lower court judge's discretion, indicating that the original sentence was unreasonably harsh given the circumstances of the case.
These findings are particularly significant because they are rare. Appellate courts generally defer to lower court judges on sentencing matters, recognizing their firsthand knowledge of the case details. Therefore, when an appellate court does intervene to reduce a sentence, it suggests a substantial deviation from typical sentencing practices. Multiple excessive sentence findings for a single judge may indicate a pattern of overly punitive sentencing that warrants closer scrutiny.
Beyond the number of findings, the total years reduced provides further context. Some excessive sentences may be reduced only slightly, while others result in dramatic cuts to incarceration time. This metric quantifies the real-world impact of appellate intervention by tracking how many years of incarceration were eliminated from a judge’s sentences.
Ranking: Based on current trial-level judges who presided over criminal cases during the years covered by our dataset, as established by appellate decisions naming them in criminal appeals, their publication of criminal trial decisions in that period, and judicial directory records showing service in criminal court during at least one year of the dataset window.
Dataset details: 2007 to the last full calendar year.
Further reading: Excessive Sentencers, a report by Scrutinize and The Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law at NYU School of Law.
What it is: The number of times appellate courts have found a judge’s sentence “excessive” or “unduly harsh” and the total years they have removed from those sentences. This metric only measures sentence reductions after trial; it excludes reductions following guilty pleas.
Why it's relevant: These rare findings, made by panels of 2-5 appellate judges, indicate that the judge was unusually severe in their sentencing decisions.
Excessive sentences are a clear signal from higher courts that a lower court judge's sentencing decision was exceptionally punitive. When an appellate court reduces a sentence "in the interest of justice," it's effectively overriding the lower court judge's discretion, indicating that the original sentence was unreasonably harsh given the circumstances of the case.
These findings are particularly significant because they are rare. Appellate courts generally defer to lower court judges on sentencing matters, recognizing their firsthand knowledge of the case details. Therefore, when an appellate court does intervene to reduce a sentence, it suggests a substantial deviation from typical sentencing practices. Multiple excessive sentence findings for a single judge may indicate a pattern of overly punitive sentencing that warrants closer scrutiny.
Beyond the number of findings, the total years reduced provides further context. Some excessive sentences may be reduced only slightly, while others result in dramatic cuts to incarceration time. This metric quantifies the real-world impact of appellate intervention by tracking how many years of incarceration were eliminated from a judge’s sentences.
Ranking: Based on current trial-level judges who presided over criminal cases during the years covered by our dataset, as established by appellate decisions naming them in criminal appeals, their publication of criminal trial decisions in that period, and judicial directory records showing service in criminal court during at least one year of the dataset window.
Dataset details: 2007 to the last full calendar year.
Further reading: Excessive Sentencers, a report by Scrutinize and The Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law at NYU School of Law.
What it is: The number of cases where appellate courts not only overturned a criminal case but also reassigned it to a different judge.
Why it's relevant: These extremely rare cases may indicate judicial impropriety, such as bias or prejudicial conduct.
Reversal and reassignment is an extraordinary action taken by appellate courts. While reversals are rare, the additional step of reassigning a case to a different judge is significantly rarer. This action suggests that the appellate court has identified issues that go beyond mere legal errors or differences in interpretation.
Reasons for reassignment can vary but often involve concerns about the judge's impartiality, bias, or conduct during the proceedings. Examples might include a judge making inappropriate comments, showing clear bias against a party, or failing to follow proper procedures in a way that compromises fairness. Even a single instance of reversal and reassignment is noteworthy and warrants close examination. Multiple instances may suggest more systemic issues with a judge's conduct or decision-making process.
Ranking: Based on current trial-level judges who presided over criminal cases during the years covered by our dataset, as established by appellate decisions naming them in criminal appeals, their publication of criminal trial decisions in that period, and judicial directory records showing service in criminal court during at least one year of the dataset window.
Dataset details: 2007 to the last full calendar year.
Further reading: Reverse & Reassign, a report by Scrutinize.
What it is: A measure of whether judges are setting affordable bail and reducing reliance on the commercial bail industry, as mandated by New York law.
Why it’s relevant: The 2019 bail reform law aimed to ensure that defendants could access affordable bail options and limit reliance on the commercial bail industry. The law sought to address disparities where wealthier defendants could buy their way out of pretrial detention, while low-income defendants were disproportionately detained simply because they could not afford to pay.
This metric evaluates whether judges are implementing bail reform in line with its legislative intent. It focuses on two key behaviors: whether a judge "blocked" access to affordable bail, such as Partially Secured Surety Bonds (PSSB), by setting them at equal or higher levels than other bail forms; and whether a judge "favored" commercial bonds by making them the cheapest option. Unlike PSSBs—where families can recover all their bail money at the end of a case—commercial bonds impose non-refundable fees and may also require collateral, adding significant financial strain on defendants and their families.
Ranking: Based on judges in New York State during the specified period.
Dataset details: Based on New York judges who appeared in monetary-bail cases captured in the Office of Court Administration pretrial data from January 2020 through December 2024.
Further reading: Setting Bail to Fail, a report by Scrutinize and the Zimroth Center at NYU School of Law.
What it is: A measure of whether judges are setting affordable bail and reducing reliance on the commercial bail industry, as mandated by New York law.
Why it’s relevant: The 2019 bail reform law aimed to ensure that defendants could access affordable bail options and limit reliance on the commercial bail industry. The law sought to address disparities where wealthier defendants could buy their way out of pretrial detention, while low-income defendants were disproportionately detained simply because they could not afford to pay.
This metric evaluates whether judges are implementing bail reform in line with its legislative intent. It focuses on two key behaviors: whether a judge "blocked" access to affordable bail, such as Partially Secured Surety Bonds (PSSB), by setting them at equal or higher levels than other bail forms; and whether a judge "favored" commercial bonds by making them the cheapest option. Unlike PSSBs—where families can recover all their bail money at the end of a case—commercial bonds impose non-refundable fees and may also require collateral, adding significant financial strain on defendants and their families.
Ranking: Based on judges in New York State during the specified period.
Dataset details: Based on New York judges who appeared in monetary-bail cases captured in the Office of Court Administration pretrial data from January 2020 through December 2024.
Further reading: Setting Bail to Fail, a report by Scrutinize and the Zimroth Center at NYU School of Law.
What it is: A measure of a judge's tendency to detain individuals before their trial, compared to their judicial peers, while accounting for factors like case severity and the defendant's criminal history.
Why it's relevant: Pretrial detention can have significant impacts. Research has linked pretrial detention with increased recidivism rates, exacerbated racial disparities, and influence over case outcomes.
This metric assesses how likely a judge is to order pretrial detention compared to their peers, even when controlling for factors such as the severity of the charges and the defendant's prior criminal record. It provides insight into a judge's approach to bail and pretrial release decisions, which can have far-reaching consequences for defendants and communities.
Research has shown that pretrial detention can lead to a range of negative outcomes. Detained individuals are more likely to plead guilty, receive harsher sentences, and experience disruptions in employment, housing, and family relationships. Moreover, even short periods of pretrial detention have been associated with an increased likelihood of future criminal activity. By quantifying a judge's tendency towards pretrial detention, this metric helps identify patterns that may contribute to these systemic issues.
What the number on a profile is: The report named the fourteen judges whose detention decisions departed furthest from what its model predicted for their own cases. For each of them, the number is the report's estimate of the additional pretrial detention those decisions caused, in years, counting 97 days of detention for each additional person detained. Every other judge the report studied shows a zero. A zero means the judge was not among the fourteen, not that the judge detained at or below the average.
Ranking: Based on the 245 New York City judges who appeared in bail-eligible arraignments between January 2020 and June 2022.
Dataset details: January 2020 to June 2022. Only uses data from New York City.
Further reading: Cost of Discretion, a report by Scrutinize, the Zimroth Center at NYU School of Law, and QSIDE Institute.
What it is: A record of public disciplinary actions, including admonitions and censures, issued by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct against a judge.
Why it's relevant: The Commission is the official state body tasked with investigating judicial misconduct and imposing disciplinary measures when appropriate. Given the rarity of public disciplinary determinations, they are a strong indicator of ethical violations or misconduct.
However, this metric requires careful interpretation. The absence of public discipline does not imply flawless conduct, as the Commission can and does resolve complaints with private warnings that are not disclosed to the public.
Furthermore, the details of a judge’s underlying conduct often highlight concerns that may not be fully reflected by the formal sanction (e.g., admonition or censure).
For these reasons, we strongly encourage readers to review the full text of any public disciplinary determinations, which are linked in each judge's profile.
Ranking: Based on all judges in New York State with public admonitions or censures.
Dataset details: Includes all public admonitions and censures through 2023 and part of 2024. Does not include removals or negotiated resignations, as those judges are no longer on the bench.
Further reading: New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Appellate judges
Appellate judge profiles are coming soon. Subscribe for an email when they launch.
Measured separately. Analysis runs only where the court split, and direction is always relative to the opposing opinion.