|Milton A. Tingling, Jr.|
Do you have a photo that could go here? Submit it for this profile by emailing us!
|Current Court Information:|
|New York County Supreme Court, New York|
|Position: || Supreme Court Justice|
|Active: || 2001-2014|
|Past position: || Judge, New York City Civil Court|
|Past term: || 1996-2000|
|Undergraduate: || Brown University, 1975|
|Law School: || North Carolina Central University School of Law, 1982|
Milton A. Tingling, Jr.
is a justice for the New York County Supreme Court
, Civil Term
in the 1st Judicial District
of New York
. He was elected to this position in 2001
and his current term expires in 2014
Tingling received his B.A. degree from Brown University in 1975 and his J.D. degree from North Carolina Central University School of Law in 1982.
Before serving as a judge, Tingling worked as a law assistant to Civil Court Judge Milton Richardson, a law secretary to Acting Supreme Court and Court of Claims Judge Dennis Edwards, a sole practitioner working in New York City and a court attorney for the Trial Part of the Civil Court, working for Hon. Wilfred O'Connor. His career on the bench began in 1996, when he was appointed to the New York City Civil Court. He served on the civil court until 2000 and he was elected to the Supreme Court in 2001.
Judge stops NYC soda ban
|March 11, 2013|
|On March 11, 2013, Judge Milton Tingling shot down a New York City soda ban supported by Mayor Bloomberg and the New York City Department of Health. The new law would have stopped restaurants and other such venues from selling sugary drinks over 16 ounces.
In his ruling, Tingling prohibited the city from "implementing or enforcing the new regulations" and turned the matter over to the New York State Legislature, stating that the Mayor and Department of Health did not have the authority to create such rules.
|| The rule would not only violate the separation of powers doctrine, it would eviscerate it...Such an evisceration has the potential to be more troubling than sugar sweetened drinks.
He also explained,
|| It is arbitrary and capricious because it applies to some but not all food establishments in the city, it excludes other beverages that have significantly higher concentrations of sugar sweeteners and/or calories on suspect grounds, and the loopholes inherent in the rule, including but not limited to no limitations on refills, defeat and/or serve to gut the purpose of the rule.
To read the full case decision, click here
The Appellate Division's First Department upheld Tingling's ruling in July 2013.