OurFirm.ai

Judicial behavioral profile

Justice Bianka
Perez

New York Supreme Court, Bronx County

What Justice Perez has required, taken from her transcripts, dockets, and decisions (published and unpublished).

Get the full profileRead the two free patterns

Parlatore Law Group · Sher Tremonte · Bruno Law · and more

Behavioral summary

In the cited rulings, Justice Perez sometimes decided fault while denying discovery relief. In others, medical proof or conflicting collision accounts left questions unresolved.

These are patterns across the cited decisions, not findings about a disposition toward either side or about any litigant’s character.

Observed patterns

Each pattern is labelled by how many distinct cases show it and footnoted to the ruling. Where the record limits a pattern, the limit stays with it.

Proof of fault did not excuse a missing discovery conference

Recurring across two matters

Justice Perez required counsel to try to resolve the discovery dispute before asking her to intervene. She could grant judgment on fault while denying requests to strike an answer or enforce discovery.

Preparation point

Show that counsel conferred on the specific dispute before asking the court to resolve it.

How it played outSituation, action, outcome
The situation
A party requested discovery orders or sanctions.
What she did
She checked whether counsel had tried to resolve the dispute.
What made a difference
A liability ruling did not excuse that missing step.
In her words1 quote

“highlight specific point(s) of contention that require judicial resolution”

Quiles v Kaba, printed p. 3. On identifying the discovery dispute the court must resolve.

In the cited cases2 rulings

Brooks: she granted liability judgment but denied discovery relief because counsel had not properly conferred in person or by phone.

Quiles: she denied the request to strike the answer under the conference requirements, while granting liability judgment.

Firsthand knowledge required a factual answer

Recurring across four matters

Justice Perez did not wait for depositions when the driver already knew the collision facts. A discovery request did not replace the driver’s factual answer. When sworn accounts conflicted about contact or responsibility, she left the dispute unresolved.

Preparation point

Address what the driver already knew before arguing that more discovery is needed.

How it played outSituation, action, outcome
The situation
A party requested judgment before depositions.
What she did
She checked the driver’s knowledge and response.
What made a difference
Conflicting sworn accounts could still require a trial.
In her words1 quote

“Defendant Cruz failed to submit any non-negligent explanation”

Alvarado v Cruz, printed p. 3. On the opposing driver’s missing explanation.

In the cited cases4 rulings

Alvarado: the driver offered no factual answer.

Lugo: the conflicting accounts did not establish which vehicle caused the collision, so the drivers’ competing requests failed.

An explained correction could reopen a ruling without restoring every claim

Recurring across two matters

Justice Perez reopened a default after an explanation about staffing and deposition evidence showing a potentially valid position.

Preparation point
How it played outSituation, action, outcomeIn her wordsHer quotesIn the cited cases2 rulings

She checked remaining issues before combining cases

Recurring across two matters

Justice Perez considered the unresolved issues when deciding whether to combine cases.

Preparation point
How it played outSituation, action, outcomeIn her wordsHer quotesIn the cited cases2 rulings

Cited rulings

Every observation traces to one of these decisions. The six behind the free patterns are listed here; the other three are in the full profile.

MatterIndex No.DecidedCitationPattern
Brooks v Thiam21700/2020EApr. 12, 20242024 NY Slip Op 35430(U)Pattern 01
Clarke v Mundo800097/2023EFeb. 20, 20242024 NY Slip Op 35830(U)Pattern 02
Lugo v Rogers25679/2019EFeb. 20, 20242024 NY Slip Op 34918(U)Pattern 02
Alvarado v Cruz806307/2022EJan. 12, 20242024 NY Slip Op 35316(U)Pattern 02
Quiles v Kaba801889/2021EMar. 14, 20232023 NY Slip Op 35206(U)Pattern 01
Davis v Santos34474/2018EOct. 19, 20212021 NY Slip Op 34036(U)Pattern 02

Built from the cited written decisions, published as NY Slip Op rulings and cited by printed page. Quotations are as printed, with only quotation-mark typography normalized. Confirm any passage against the decision before relying on it in a filing. OurFirm.ai is not affiliated with or endorsed by the court or any judge.

How to read this profile

Judge AI reports what a judge said and did in cited decisions, and labels how far each observation reaches. It does not forecast outcomes, compute grant rates, or characterize temperament, motive, or bias, and a question from the bench is never reported as a ruling. It informs your judgment; it does not replace it.

How Judge AI is built
Observed conduct
A specific ruling, order, or statement in a cited decision.
Recurring across matters
The same narrow conduct in two or more distinct cited cases. Not a rate.
Repeated within one matter
Several instances inside one litigation. Never counted as corroboration.
Isolated
One cited ruling. Reported, never generalized into a trait.

Other profiled judges

Built the same way, from each judge's own written decisions. Name any judge on your docket and we will build theirs. All New York profiles

Questions about this profile

Get the full profile

How has Justice Perez handled discovery motions without a conference?

In the cited rulings she checked whether counsel had tried to resolve the dispute before asking her to intervene. She granted judgment on fault in the same rulings while denying the discovery relief, without deciding that the requested discovery was unnecessary.

How has Justice Perez handled requests for judgment before depositions?

She did not wait for depositions when the driver already knew the collision facts and offered no factual answer. When sworn accounts conflicted about contact or responsibility, she left the dispute unresolved.

Can Judge AI predict how Justice Perez will rule?

No. Judge AI builds behavioral profiles from real opinions, oral argument transcripts, and docket records so you can see how a judge has responded to arguments like yours before. It informs your judgment; it does not replace it or forecast an outcome.

Where does this profile come from?

From Justice Perez’s written decisions. The profile cites 9 rulings across 9 cases from 2021 to 2024, each by case name, NY Slip Op citation, and page.

What is in the full profile?

All four observed patterns with every pinpoint, the limits and exceptions the record contains, and the preparation points that follow from them. We walk you through it on a 30-minute call and can build the profile for the judge on your next matter.

Judges like hearing their own words back to them.

Get all four patterns on Justice Perez, with every pinpoint, on a 30-minute walkthrough. Then name the judge on your next matter and we will build that profile too.

Get the full profile

Enterprise MSA & BAA provided · Onboarding in 24 hours

2 of 4 patterns freeGet the full profile