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.