Judicial behavioral profile

Justice Jennifer G.
Schecter

New York Supreme Court, New York County

What Justice Schecter has required, taken from her transcripts, dockets, and decisions (published and unpublished).

Get the full profile Read the one free patterns

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

Behavioral summary

In the cited rulings, Justice Schecter required lawyers to review documents and produce supporting evidence. She considered whether the opponent could still examine it and whether earlier orders had been ignored. New requests also had to distinguish later events from previously omitted material.

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.

She asks whether the opponent can still examine the evidence

Recurring across four matters

Justice Schecter required lawyers to review documents and produce supporting material. She refused exclusion after substantial notice when the requesting party declined an adjournment. Neither the party nor its expert could produce the missing online reviews, so expert testimony could not substitute for them. Tsung Tsin’s ignored orders led her to strike its answer.

Preparation point

Identify what examination remains possible, what would restore it and which opportunities have expired.

How it played outSituation, action, outcome

The situation: The opponent lacked a usable chance to examine the supporting evidence.
What she did: Required lawyers to review documents and refused expert testimony as a substitute for missing online reviews.
What made a difference: Declining an adjournment defeated a request to exclude evidence; ignoring conditional orders cost a defense.

In her words2 quotes

“It cannot seek to avoid this evidentiary problem by effectively seeking to admit the reviews through expert testimony.”

Taxi Tours Inc. v Go N.Y. Tours, Inc., printed p. 2. She addressed missing online reviews offered through an expert.

“repeatedly ghosts opposing counsel and the court”

Tsung Tsin Assn., Inc. v Tian Xiang Zhu, printed p. 3. She described the documented repeated failures to respond in this case.

In the cited cases5 rulings

ROAM required actual review and production of documents in unsupported privilege categories. The First Department affirmed.

In Taxi Tours, Go New York could not introduce 6,416 missing online reviews through its expert. Neither it nor the expert had preserved them.

In Tribeca, she refused exclusion after both sides disclosed late. The party requesting exclusion had substantial notice and declined the offered adjournment.

Tsung Tsin’s repeated ignored orders and missed conditional deadline resulted in its answer being struck.

She distinguishes new events from material that should have been presented earlier

Recurring across two matters

Justice Schecter checked when the party could have raised the matter.

Mi orpa midis sta vel capa si dinqualen palo tepa ca ra disquamo caromo tercater din te parotur sidis benben nosta milo pavelqua nobenpa lonoca lostadis pa siben stanoor. Orben velpa noroca, nolenlen disbenqua raterter cavelro moben ro nomiro rotur, lenno nomi ter.

Rolen turrobensta or quapa rolenvel mo stalenmo tersta moorvelben miqua or nomilen si tur si sta stasta tursta, orro rostara momo. Momi caquatur mimi quasimolen ter orbenno losica, velbenvel te lotequa casi.

Preparation point

How it played outSituation, action, outcome In her wordsHer quotes In the cited cases2 rulings

Cited rulings

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

Matter	Index No.	Decided	Citation	Pattern
ROAM Capital, Inc. v Asia Alternatives Mgt. LLC	651728/2019	Feb. 11, 2025	2025 NY Slip Op 00798	Pattern 01
ROAM Capital, Inc. v Asia Alternatives Mgt. LLC	651728/2019	May 23, 2024	2024 NY Slip Op 31811(U)	Pattern 01
Tsung Tsin Assn., Inc. v Tian Xiang Zhu	651584/2023	Nov. 16, 2023	2023 NY Slip Op 34083(U)	Pattern 01
Taxi Tours Inc. v Go N.Y. Tours, Inc.	653012/2019	July 18, 2023	2023 NY Slip Op 33936(U)	Pattern 01
Tribeca Space Mgrs., Inc. v Tribeca Mews Ltd.	653292/2013	June 28, 2017	2017 NY Slip Op 31407(U)	Pattern 01

Si Nodispa v. Stalen Din	650000/00	Jan. 00, 2000	2000 NY Slip Op 00000(U)	Pattern 00
Quaben Velro v. Rolo Dindis	650000/00	Jan. 00, 2000	2000 NY Slip Op 00000(U)	Pattern 00

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 Schecter handled disputes over whether evidence can still be examined?

In the cited rulings she required lawyers to review documents and produce supporting material. She refused exclusion when the requesting party had substantial notice and declined an adjournment, would not let expert testimony substitute for evidence no one preserved, and struck an answer after repeated ignored orders.

Can Judge AI predict how Justice Schecter 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 Schecter’s written decisions. The profile cites 7 rulings across 5 cases from 2017 to 2025, each by case name, NY Slip Op citation, and page. One is an appellate decision reviewing her rulings.

What is in the full profile?

All two 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 two patterns on Justice Schecter, with every pinpoint, on a 30-minute walkthrough. Then name the judge on your next matter and we will build that profile too.