L

• Author: Elizabeth Smith/Mark Thompson
• Pages: 5-36

LAMONT, DAN

Justice, Third Judicial District Supreme

Court, Albany County

Judge, Court of Claims, State of New York

Previous Experience: Elected Schoharie

County Judge, Surrogate and Family Court,

1978; reelected in 1988; Practicing attorney,

Cobleskill, NY, 1971-1978; Employed as

Assistant Attorney General by New York

Attorney General Louis J. Lefkowitz—Appeals

& Opinions Bureau, The Capitol, Albany, NY,

1967-1968.

Honors and Memberships: Member:

County Judges’ Association of the State of

New York (Past President, 1991-1992).

Admission: Admitted to New York State

Bar, Third Department, December 1967.

Education: National Judicial College,

Reno, NV (1985); Doctor of Laws Degree,

Union University, Albany Law School (1967;

received with honors (3rd in class), Associate

Editor of Albany Law Review, Member of

Justinian Honor Society); A.B., Hamilton

College, Clinton, NY (1964).

Military Experience: Served in the United

States Navy, Judge Advocate General’s Corps

for three years as trial counsel, defense coun-

sel, and Military Judge in Courts-Martial,

1968-1971.

Biographical Data: Married; four children.

Address: Supreme Court

Third Judicial District

Schoharie County Courthouse

P.O. Box 369

Schoharie, NY 12157

Phone: (518) 295-8640

Fax: (518) 295-8638

ATTORNEYS’COMMENTS

TEMPERAMENT/DEMEANOR

Interviewees were quick to praise Judge

Lamont’s demeanor. They described it as “won-

derful, superb” and “excellent.” Other com-

ments included, “He’s thoughtful and courte-

ous,” “He’s mild and even tempered,” “He’s a

model judge. His demeanor is great,” “His

demeanor is very good—he’s an interesting

man” and “He’s a very nice man. He’s very affa-

ble and polite.”

ON THE BENCH

Interviewees said Judge Lamont is “very

bright” and described his legal knowledge as

“a little above average,” “excellent,” “well

above average—especially when it comes to

procedural matters,” “outstanding”and “very

good—very thorough.”This jurist was repeat-

edly commended for his politeness to every-

one in his courtroom and for being well pre-

pared. His courtroom management style is

considered, “somewhat formal,” “between for-

mal and relaxed” and “[falling] between for-

mal and relaxed.” One attorney said the way

this judge handles matters simply,

“depend[s] on the issues of the case.”

ONTRIAL

Interviewees indicated they appreciate

Judge Lamont’s openness to their arguments

and said his courtroom atmosphere is “attor-

ney friendly,” “cordial” and “comfortable.”One

of these same lawyers added, “However, you

always know who’s in charge—even though

he’s never confrontational.” Attorneys said

Judge Lamont moves his cases “at an appro-

priate speed,” “at an efficient pace” and “a bit

faster than other judges.” Other attorneys

disagreed slightly and said this jurist moves

cases at an “average” pace or a “little bit slow-

er” than other judges. One of them attributed

this slower speed to Judge Lamont’s working

“so hard at urging settlements.”

SETTLEMENTS

Interviewees said they are basically

pleased with Judge Lamont’s settlement and

negotiating skills. “He’s good—he puts the

time in and really works at trying to settle

matters.” “He’s proactive.” “He’s very good at

settling cases.” “His skills are average in this

area. He helps but really hopes that the

attorneys will settle matters without him.”

ADJOURNMENTS/CONTINUANCES

Several attorneys interviewed said Judge

Lamont is “more likely” to grant an adjourn-

ment based on good cause, while others said,

“You’ve got an average chance of getting one.

In fact, he may be a bit more inclined to grant

one,” “He’s a bit more likely” to grant an

adjournment” and “He’s more likely to grant

one because he’s very understanding about the

problems attorneys regularly encounter in

practicing law.”

Profiles Lamont 491

PROCLIVITIES

Every interviewee said Judge Lamont real-

ly tries hard to issue neutral rulings and

decisions. Some simply said, “He’s very fair,”

while others opined, “He’s fair to both sides,”

“[In terms of fairness,] he’s superb,” “He’s

very neutral,” “On a scale between one and

ten, I’d give him a “nine’ for fairness.”

SUGGESTIONS/SUMMARY

Judge Lamont has a strong reputation for

issuing fair rulings and decisions and regularly

displays a pleasant courtroom demeanor.

Lawyers indicated they like trying cases before

this jurist and say he has a good understand-

ing of the law.

LARIMER, DAVID G.

Judge, U.S. District Court, Western

District of New York

Appointment/Election: Nominated to

District Court by President Ronald Reagan in

1987; currently serving on senior status as of

March 2009.

Previous Experience: Chief Judge, U.S.

District Court, Western District of NY, 1996-

2002; U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District

Court, Western District of NY, 1983-1987;

Attorney, private practice, 1982-1987; Chief

Appellant Law Assistant, NY Supreme Court,

1979-1981; Attorney, private practice, NY,

1975-1979; Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S.

Attorney’s Office,Western District of NY,

1973-1975; Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S.

Attorney’s Office, District of Columbia, 1970-

1973; Law Clerk to Hon. Joseph McGarraghy,

District of Columbia, 1969-1970.

Education: J.D., Notre Dame Law School

(1969); B.A., St. John Fisher (1966).

Address: U.S. Courthouse

100 State Street

Rochester, NY 14614

Phone: (585) 613-4040

ATTORNEYS’COMMENTS

TEMPERAMENT/DEMEANOR

Respondents seem to like Judge Larimer’s

temperament. They described it as “very good,”

“fine,” “professional” and “excellent.” One of

them added, “Judge Larimer is a compassion-

ate man.” One other attorney said Judge

Larimer’s demeanor is “very appropriate.”

ON THE BENCH

All of the lawyers interviewed described

Judge Larimer’s legal knowledge as either

“above average” or “excellent.” Nearly half of

the attorneys said this jurist’s courtroom

management style is “between formal and

relaxed.” Several others described it as “pro-

fessional.” One said, “Judge Larimer’s style is

very efficient.” Members of the bar seem to

appreciate Judge Larimer’s ability to move

matters through his courtroom expeditiously.

Most of them said the pace is either “appro-

priate” or “average.” Another litigator said

this jurist moves cases at a “good” pace.

Every interviewee said Judge Larimer is cour-

teous to all who enter his courtroom. In fact,

one litigator said, “He’s very polite.”

Attorneys seem to appreciate this jurist’s

habit of usually taking the bench on time.

ONTRIAL

Most interviewees said Judge Larimer

usually listens closely to their arguments

while keeping an open mind. One of them

even said it’s really possible to change this

jurist’s mind. However, one attorney dis-

agreed with the majority and said, “It’s hard

to tell” if Judge Larimer listens closely and

keeps an open mind. Judge Larimer’s court-

room atmosphere was described as either

“professional” or “very professional” by most

of the lawyers. Others said this jurist’s

departmental atmosphere is “scholarly yet

comfortable” and “pleasant and professional.”

Interviewees who had handled jury trials in

front of Judge Larimer said he interacts well

with jurors. In fact, one of them opined,

“Judge Larimer interacts extremely well” with

jurors. Attorneys also said Judge Larimer

usually stays reasonably open to requests for

special jury instructions. In fact, one lawyer

said, “He absolutely” remains open to such

requests. Lawyers praised Judge Larimer’s

ability to handle both complex criminal and

civil cases. When exercising his discretionary

sentencing duties, attorneys said Judge

Larimer is “fair,” “very open minded but not

lenient,” “very fair” and “rather moderate.”

SETTLEMENTS

Most lawyers interviewed declined to com-

ment on this jurist’s settlement and negotiating

skills after noting that federal court judges are

not supposed to help settle criminal cases. Other

attorneys said their experiences handling civil

matters in front of Judge Larimer were insuffi-

cient to allow them to provide an opinion.

492 Larimer New York Judge Reviews

ADJOURNMENTS/CONTINUANCES

A majority of the interviewees said Judge

Larimer is “reasonable” about granting

adjournments once good cause has been

demonstrated. One attorney simply said,

“You have an average chance” of getting him

to grant one.

PROCLIVITIES

Every interviewee said Judge Larimer

issues neutral rulings and decisions. Most of

them simply said, “He’s impartial.” Other

comments included: “Judge Larimer is fair”

and “He’s very fair.”

SUGGESTIONS/SUMMARY

Attorneys seem very impressed with

Judge Lariner’s legal knowledge, courtroom

management style and handling of his dis-

cretionary sentencing duties in criminal

cases. Lawyers also praised Judge Larimer

for his overall fairness.

LATELLA, JOHN B., JR.

Judge, New York City Criminal Court,

Queens County

Appointment/Election: Appointed by

Mayor Rudolph Guiliani to a 10-year term

commencing on January 1, 1996. Official

Oath Date: December 14, 1995.

Previous Experience: Criminal Court

Judge, New York City, appointed by Mayor

Edward Koch, February 13, 1987.

Admission: Admitted to New York State

Bar in 1976.

Education: J.D., Yale Law School (1975);

A.B., Princeton University (1972).

Biographical Data: Born January 29,

1951 in Bronx, NY. Married; four children.

Address: 125-01 Queens Boulevard

Kew Gardens, NY 11415

Phone: (718) 520-3508

ATTORNEYS’COMMENTS

TEMPERAMENT/DEMEANOR

When asked about Judge Latella’s tem-

perament and demeanor, one respondent

said, “I wouldn’t necessarily call Judge

Latella pleasant, warm and friendly. It’s just

that he is never, ever mean or nasty. He’s

introverted and quiet, but not very helpful.”

Another attorney said, “He strives to remain

the picture of neutrality while on the record,

but he’ll cut you some slack if you approach

him at sidebar.” “He tries so hard to be

impartial that he appears bored to tears.”

“He is the definition of even-tempered,” said

another respondent. “I’ve never seen him on

trial,” said one lawyer, “but I get the impres-

sion he’s very reasonable to deal with.”

ON THE BENCH

As for the judge’s intelligence and

knowledge, one attorney responded, “Judge

Latella is as smart as the next judge.” “I

think he’s very bright,” said another. “He

hasn’t really been afforded the opportunity

to shine, due to his assignments.” “He

doesn’t get many trials.” “It’s very hard to

say if he’s very street smart, but he can be

clever, and has a sense of humor.” One

attorney said, “He’s bright, but not aggres-

sive. I think he’s better off on the bench

than in private practice.” “He can follow any

argument you make.” “Smooth,” “without

incident” and “stress free” were some of the

expressions used by practicing attorneys to

describe the conduct of hearings and trials

in front of Judge Latella. “I’ve never seen

him yell, or lose his temper, or even tell an

attorney or witnesses to move things

along,” said one seasoned attorney. “He’s

fairly punctual, he follows the procedural

and substantive law, and he lets you try

your case.” “The worst thing I can say

about him is that he gives you absolutely

no feedback. You have no idea how you’re

doing in front of him. He’s that neutral.”

PROCLIVITIES

Again, Judge Latella’s legendary neutrality

is the dominant theme. “He is the picture of

impartiality,” said one lawyer. “I’ve never seen

him lean one way or the other on any consis-

tent basis.” “He’s fair, plain and simple.”

SUGGESTIONS/SUMMARY

That “written decisions are few and far

between, but timely and well reasoned” was

the majority consensus.

LAU, LAURIE L.

Housing Judge, Civil Court, New York County

Appointment/Election: Appointed to a

five year term commencing in February 1993;

Re-appointed in February 2008.

Profiles Lau 493