Judges at this hearing office vary in approval rates and decision volume. Select a judge to view individual statistics.
(Judge-level statistics reflect the most recent fiscal year with available data.
Approval rates may vary over time and by case type.)
| Judge Name | Approval Rate | Compared to Office Average | Decision Count | Data Recency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sol A Wieselthier | 53% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 451 | 2012 |
| Andrew S Weiss | 0% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 2 | 2012 |
| Hazel C Strauss | 29% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 1,016 | 2016 |
| Mark Sochaczewsky | 0% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 2 | 2010 |
| Robert R Schriver | 49% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 870 | 2025 |
| Gloria Pellegrino | 33% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 635 | 2020 |
| Margaret L Pecoraro | 62% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 4,555 | 2025 |
| David Z Nisnewitz | 45% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 2,577 | 2015 |
| Aaron M Morgan | 100% | Above (office avg. 67%) | 4 | 2017 |
| Sandra M Mckenna | 51% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 666 | 2020 |
| Gal Lahat | 49% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 2,467 | 2017 |
| James Kearns | 50% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 4 | 2019 |
| Jeffrey M. Jordan | 41% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 37 | 2010 |
| Ifeoma N Iwuamadi | 47% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 1,445 | 2020 |
| Marilyn P Hoppenfeld | 52% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 1,521 | 2016 |
| Jacquelin Haber Lamkay | 50% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 383 | 2017 |
| Michael Friedman | 43% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 491 | 2019 |
| Seymour Fier | 46% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 1,301 | 2014 |
| Margaret A Donaghy | 49% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 1,251 | 2025 |
| Michael W Devlin | 3% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 31 | 2012 |
| Jay L Cohen | 54% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 3,156 | 2020 |
| Michael D Cofresi | 51% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 2,759 | 2016 |
| John J Barry | 51% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 666 | 2015 |
| Michelle I Allen | 49% | Below (office avg. 67%) | 982 | 2020 |
These statistics provide additional context about how cases are processed at this hearing office.
They reflect system-level activity, not individual judge decision behavior, and may vary based on administrative and procedural factors.