Gary K. Wolinetz
How Judge Wolinetz decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In insurance-indemnity disputes over a fully-litigated prior verdict, he treats collateral attacks on the prior judgment's reliability as foreclosed once the party had a genuine opportunity to litigate it through appeal, and is unmoved by arguments resting on stray dicta rather than a clear controlling holding.
“One thing is certain. J&J had its day in Court in the Ingham case. And J&J lost.”
In settlement-enforcement disputes he reads a settlement agreement's payment-method flexibility literally: if the agreement lets a debtor pay 'by any other means' besides selling specific listed properties, he treats that clause as controlling and will not read an implied obligation to sell any particular asset back into the deal, even to accommodate a sympathetic hardship.
“[Defendants'] role is to enforce contracts... not write... new and improved contracts.”
On expert testimony, he applies the net-opinion doctrine rigorously against conclusions that are not tied to a stated methodology or supporting authority, regardless of the expert's credentials.
“Judge Wolinetz correctly rejected [plaintiffs' expert's] unsupported conclusion as a net opinion.”
Procedural preferences
He enforces the unpublished-opinion citation rule (R. 1:36-3) firmly and will call out counsel by name in a written opinion for excessive reliance on unpublished authority, even while tolerating a handful of such citations.
“As counsel is aware, pursuant to R. 1:36-3, 'no unpublished opinion shall constitute precedent or be binding upon any court.' ... Citing a few key unpublished cases is fine. Citing close to 50 unpublished cases is not.”
Faced with a complex motion joined by many parties, he requires each to brief its own position rather than ride on a lead movant's papers, once the stakes are high enough.
“I regard this motion as too important to rely on a series of "me too" submissions... I will require each Excess Insurer to file separate motions for summary judgment.”
Mid-trial, his default response to an evidentiary violation (e.g., a subsequent-remedial-measure photograph shown to the jury) is a firm curative instruction rather than a mistrial -- a tendency lawyers should weigh carefully, since an Appellate Division panel later found that approach insufficient once errors compounded.
“You are to disregard plaintiff's use of the last photograph that he showed to you and specifically disregard any comments that he made to you regarding that photo. You are to strike them from your mind, from your consciousness. They do not exist.”
Cautions
In multi-defendant fraud pleadings he dismisses claims against passive, non-officer defendants (e.g., mere shareholders) for lack of particularized allegations even where the same claims survive against more directly-involved officer-defendants, and is quick to spot -- and penalize -- a 'find and replace' pleading that just substitutes 'Defendants' for a single named actor.
“It appears, as counsel for these defendants suggest, that Cosmax simply replaced the name of "Jonathan Rosenbaum" from the original Complaint in various situations and replaced it with the word "Defendants"... That is insufficient... to further embroil these defendants in this litigation at this juncture.”
His mid-trial evidentiary rulings and curative instructions, however firmly worded, are not always sufficient to insulate a verdict on appeal once multiple errors compound -- a $2.5M verdict he presided over was vacated for a new trial despite his curative instruction and his own summation ban, because the panel found the cumulative effect of the errors still misled the jury.
“The admitted evidence, individually and cumulatively, rose to the level of a miscarriage of justice warranting a new trial because it had the capacity to mislead the jury, despite the curative instruction given by the trial court.”
In discovery disputes involving a child examinee, he weighs the examinee's vulnerability and the one-sided nature of a repeat-player defense expert heavily against a defendant's preference for unconditional, unrecorded access, and will impose recording/attendance conditions even absent clear appellate guidance on who bears the burden of proof.
“Under these circumstances, an accurate record of the medical examinations... is crucial to the administration of justice and fair to both sides. At trial, if there is a dispute as to what happened in the examinations, the likelihood of a seven-year-old's testimony adequately countering the testimony of an expert witness... may be low.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“On that basis alone, J&J is not entitled to indemnification or insurance coverage arising out of the Ingham verdicts and partial summary judgment in favor of Travelers is granted.”
“Defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, in the alternative, a new trial. After a hearing, the trial court issued a written opinion denying defendant's motion on both grounds.”
“The trial court ultimately denied the motion for mistrial, concluding any potential prejudice could be remedied by a curative instruction.”
“In a thoughtful, comprehensive opinion, Judge Gary Wolinetz found defendants "failed to meet their explicit obligations under the terms of the Settlement Agreement," ... [the illness and storm damage] "did not constitute 'fraud or other compelling circumstances' needed to justify modifying the settlement agreement."”
“Here, Judge Wolinetz found defendants' "time to sell [the property] ha[d] passed," as they failed to close ... prior to ... January 14, 2024... the judge opined the "prospective sale could fall through tomorrow."”
“Accordingly, I am dismissing, without prejudice, the claims against Michael Rosenbaum and the Lard Defendants on this basis alone -- the lack of specificity in the pleaded fraud claims.”
“I believe the better course is to deny the motion on the fraud claims as to these defendants... so discovery may proceed... Finally, Dolleck's motion to dismiss based on the loan issue is DENIED, without prejudice.”
“Judge Gary K. Wolinetz granted defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs' cause of action as a matter of law in an order dated March 25, 2019.”
“The judge reached the same conclusion with respect to plaintiffs' legal malpractice claims against their closing attorney Simon.”
“Plaintiffs also appealed Judge Wolinetz's denial of their motion for reconsideration. However, our decision to uphold the judge's order granting defendants' motions for summary judgment renders this aspect of the appeal moot.”
“For the reasons that follow, the Movants' motion is DENIED, and the Wellmans' cross-motion is GRANTED.”
“In balancing the burdens on the Movants and their doctors to obtain an independent medical examination to mount an adequate defense, and the Movants' need for information, with the interests of Ryan, the court deems an unobtrusive recording and the presence of one of Ryan's parents... far outweighs the difficulties.”
“Judge Gary K. Wolinetz denied the motion in a cogent written opinion... we affirm the court's order, substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Wolinetz's well-reasoned opinion.”
“The insurer, Universal, cannot take a right of subrogation from the insured, Laspada, that he never had. Summary judgment in favor of the Association and against Universal is GRANTED.”
Put Judge Wolinetz's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Wolinetz actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Wolinetz's own signed orders and cites them.