Hon. Jeffrey K. Oing (Ret.) joined JAMS after serving on the bench as a distinguished jurist for 20 years. He has presided over and resolved many cases through pretrial rulings, bench and jury trials, judgments and settlement conferences across a wide range of practice areas and industries including complex business and commercial, employment and labor, construction, insurance, intellectual property, real property/real estate, personal injury and professional malpractice. His judicial tenure, combined with his extensive legal and administrative skills acquired during his time in private and public practice, equips him to deliver sophisticated ADR services as an arbitrator, mediator, special master and neutral evaluator in a wide range of roles and cases.

Justice Oing’s reputation as a learned and talented jurist and practitioner is well known. He has been described as a “hard-working, highly personable jurist and a person who likes to listen carefully, and then—outside of the courtroom and sometimes in it—works to build consensus,” and as a person who “gets people to cooperate [and] to pull in the same direction.” 

In November 2022, in connection with a vacancy created by the resignation of the chief judge of the Court of Appeals, the New York State Commission on Judicial Nomination included Justice Oing among the nominees, “who, in the Commission’s collective judgement, are well qualified, by virtue of their character, temperament, professional aptitude, experience, qualifications and fitness for office, to fulfill the duties of Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and the State of New York.”

In 2017, Justice Oing was appointed to the Appellate Division, First Department of the New York State Supreme Court, a court whose jurisdiction encompasses New York and Bronx counties and hears appeals from the Supreme Court (civil and criminal), Surrogate’s Court, Family Court and Court of Claims. The court’s docket consists of approximately 7,000 appeals, 5,000 motions and 800 interim applications. During his tenure, Justice Oing authored several decisions, some of which involved disputes impacting commercial, employment and labor, construction, insurance and real property/real estate law. His experience enables him to provide unique insights and perspectives for appellate advocacy before that court.

Justice Oing began his judicial career when he was elected to the New York County Civil Court in 2003. In 2009, he was appointed supervising judge of the New York County Civil Court and designated an acting Supreme Court judge. As supervising judge, Justice Oing was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Civil Court. In addition to his supervisory duties, he presided over jury and nonjury trials, as well as conferenced and mediated disputes. In 2010, he was elected to the Supreme Court, and after a five-month assignment to a General Trial Part, he was assigned to the Commercial Division. There, he presided over complex business and financial disputes, including a high-profile litigation involving three retail giants—Macy’s, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (MSLO) and J.C. Penney—wherein Macy’s alleged that MSLO breached its exclusivity contract and that J.C. Penney had tortiously interfered with that contract. He also presided over a bench trial involving one of the most prestigious private schools in Europe, the century-old Athens College, which was enmeshed in a long-standing dispute involving the allocation of its corporate governance powers.

From 2002 to 2003, Justice Oing served as deputy general counsel for the Office of the General Counsel, The Council of the City of New York, overseeing the City Council’s litigation and legal matters. During that year, he was appointed deputy director for the New York City Districting Commission, where he was responsible for assisting the Commission in redistricting the city’s 51 City Council districts and for obtaining the U.S. Department of Justice’s Section 5 preclearance approval for the redistricting plan pursuant to the Voting Rights Act.

Between 1993 and 2002, Justice Oing held various positions in the New York State Supreme Court. He served as court attorney in the New York State Supreme Court (New York County), law secretary to Hon. Marylin G. Diamond and, subsequently, law secretary to Hon. Walter B. Tolub, and principal appellate court attorney in the Appellate Division, First Department. In those positions, he had the opportunity to assist in authoring major legal decisions on a diverse range of issues, notably Stringfellow’s of New York, Ltd. v. City of New York, which held that the city’s zoning ordinance relocating adult entertainment establishments from Times Square and other commercial areas did not violate the First Amendment. Prior to his work with the New York State Supreme Court, Justice Oing spent several years in private practice concentrating on commercial litigation. He also served a brief stint as assistant counsel to New Jersey Governor James J. Florio.

Before entering private practice, Justice Oing was a judicial law clerk to Chief Justice Robert N. Wilentz of the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey. During his clerkship, he worked on the matter of Abbott v. Burke, a major case in which the court held that New Jersey’s education funding formula was unconstitutional because it denied poorer urban school districts the “thorough and efficient” education required by the state’s constitution.

ADR Experience and Qualifications 

• Seasoned jurist and ADR practitioner whose varied legal career, both on and off the bench, enable him to serve in several capacities—as an arbitrator and mediator, as well as an effective special master and neutral evaluator—for a wide array of cases and industries
• Highly sought-after speaker on numerous legal topics, including presentations before the New York City Bar Association, American Bar Association, New York State Bar Association, Practising Law Institute, Asian American Bar Association and the New York County Lawyers Association, among others
• Served on the board of directors of the Chinese American Planning Council, Inc., a not-for-profit social service, educational and planning organization serving the city’s Asian communities, and is a member of several bar associations, including the New York State Bar Association, New York County Lawyers’ Association, Asian American Bar Association of New York, Jewish Lawyers Guild and New York Women’s Bar Association

Representative Matters

• Business Commercial

Breach of Contract 

• Gulf LNG Energy, LLC v. Eni S.p.A., 2024 WL 4268683 (1st Dept 2024): Justice Oing, writing for the unanimous court, ruled that defendant Eni S.p.A.’s breach of contract counterclaims were precluded under the doctrine of res judicata because the same claims were asserted by its privy, Eni USA, in a prior arbitration. The fact that the counterclaims were never decided was immaterial. The tribunal declared that the contract was terminated due to frustration of purpose, excusing Eni USA from performance and rendering the counterclaims “academic.”
• Mulacek v. ExxonMobil Corp., 216 AD3d 114 (1st Dept 2023), aff’d, 42 NY3d 931 (2024): As part of ExxonMobil’s acquisition of a Canadian oil and gas company, ExxonMobil executed a contingent resource payment (CRP) agreement that contained a limitations-on-suit clause. Individual holders of the CRP rights brought a breach of contract action against ExxonMobil, challenging the CRP’s valuation formula. ExxonMobil moved to dismiss the breach of contract action. In writing for the majority, Justice Oing found that the plaintiffs lacked standing under the limitations-on-suit clause because they were not holders of more than 25% of escrow verification receipts for the CRPs, or a special committee having authority to initiate any action with respect to the CRP agreement. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
• Extended CHHA Acquisition, LLC v. Mahoney, 215 AD3d 18 (1st Dept 2023): In a buyer’s action for specific performance of a purchase agreement for a home healthcare agency, the seller claimed the buyer had repudiated the contract and breached an implied time-of-the-essence agreement for closing. In writing for the unanimous court, Justice Oing found that the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment for specific performance, as the buyer had failed its own obligations under the contract by not wiring payment funds by the required deadline despite being ready, willing and able to close. Justice Oing otherwise affirmed the lower court’s order denying the seller’s motion for summary judgment, as the seller had unequivocally ignored the buyer’s alleged repudiation. The seller’s principals had exchanged messages indicating that the buyer could still close by wiring the purchase price by the deadline. Furthermore, the contract’s circumstances and parties’ course of dealing did not clearly indicate that the parties intended time to be of the essence for closing.
• Veneto Hotel & Casino v. German American Capital Corp., 651888/2015 (Sup Ct, NY County 2016), 2016 WL 6083860, aff’d, 160 AD3d 451 (1st Dept 2018): Hotel owner filed suit against the lender alleging that the lender breached the parties’ $60 million loan and security agreement. Justice Oing granted the lender’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the agreements provided the lender with discretion to apply its security to fund the hotel’s expenses following the loan default. This decision was affirmed on appeal.
• Macy’s Inc. v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. and J.C. Penney Corp., Inc., 45 Misc 3d 274 (Sup Ct, NY County 2014), aff’d as modified, 127 AD3d 48 (1st Dept 2015): This dispute involved three of the largest retailers in the United States. Macy’s sued Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (MSLO), for breach of contract and J.C. Penney for tortious interference of contract. Justice Oing presided over the bench trial spanning several months. During the trial, Justice Oing settled Macy’s dispute with MSLO. Macy’s did not settle with J.C. Penney. In his written decision, Justice Oing found in favor of Macy’s and against J.C. Penney for tortious interference with contract.

General Business

• EPAC Technologies, Inc. v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 225 AD3d 53 (1st Dept 2024): Justice Oing, writing for the unanimous court, found that a party may repudiate a contract by an affirmative act that renders performance impossible without breaching the contract. In this case, defendant John Wiley & Sons contracted with EPAC Technologies (EPAC) to print textbooks using proprietary technology at a specialized facility in Edison, New Jersey. Two years later, EPAC sold the facility and technology assets to another printing company, Lightning Sources. As part of the sale, EPAC granted Lightning Source an exclusive license to use the proprietary technology. Justice Oing held that EPAC had repudiated the contract by eliminating its own ability to perform. He further found that the fact that Lightning Sources could have somehow satisfied EPAC’s printing obligations under the contract with John Wiley & Sons was immaterial.
• Fein v. Langer, 2024 WL 4438592 (1st Dept 2024): The unanimous court, in a decision authored by Justice Oing, held that respondent Irving Langer was judicially estopped from making arguments challenging petitioners’ demand to arbitrate his claims against petitioners because they were contrary to his prior litigation position. As a named defendant with petitioners in a prior action involving similar claims and the same controlling agreements, respondent requested arbitration of those claims, taking the position that the broad arbitration provisions of the controlling agreements mandated arbitration. Respondent thereafter stipulated to arbitrate the claims and entered into a settlement agreement. Justice Oing reasoned that the stipulation and settlement agreement in the prior action, taken together, satisfied the critical element of judicial estoppel requiring the purportedly estopped party to secure a “favorable judgment.”
• NCCMI, Inc. v. Bersin Props., LLC, 226 AD3d 88 (1st Dept 2024): In writing for the unanimous court, Justice Oing found that the phrase “recourse to Borrower” instead of “recourse to Indemnitor” in a full debt recourse liability provision in a loan guaranty agreement was an obvious scrivener’s error. He reasoned that a literal interpretation would render the provision meaningless and illusory because the borrower was a single-purpose entity with no assets other than the property at issue and did not sign the guaranty agreement. He held that the court was not constrained to adopt an absurd phrasing in the contract even when the six-year statute of limitations for reformation had passed, because the error was obvious and the drafters’ intention was clear. Accordingly, Justice Oing held that the indemnitor was personally liable, reasoning that a debtor cannot guarantee its own debt.
• In re Baltic Trading Stockholders Litigation, Index No. 651241/2015 (Sup Ct, NY County 2016), aff’d, 160 AD3d 599 (1st Dept 2018): Shareholders in a subsidiary acquired by its controlling shareholder commenced an action against the controlling shareholder alleging that the controlling shareholder acquired the subsidiary for inadequate consideration. Justice Oing granted the controlling shareholder’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the shareholders’ allegations were insufficient to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. His decision was affirmed on appeal.
• Nelux Holdings International, N.V. v. Dweck, Index No. 652562/2015 (Sup Ct, NY County 2016), aff’d, 160 AD3d 520 (1st Dept 2018): Lender commenced an action against the borrower to recover on a loan. Justice Oing denied the borrower’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, which was based on the argument that the statute of limitations for the claim had expired, by finding that an issue of fact existed as to whether lender and borrower entered into new or continuing loan contracts that extended the statute of limitations. The Appellate Division affirmed Justice Oing’s decision.
• L.A. Grika v. McGraw Hill, 650459/2016 (Sup Ct, NY County 2016), 2016 WL 8716417, aff’d, 161 AD3d 450 (1st Dept 2018): In this shareholder derivative action, plaintiff shareholder alleged that defendant corporation’s board permitted the corporation to issue inaccurate credit ratings with respect to collateral debt obligations and mortgage-backed securities and that, as a consequence, the defendant corporation was exposed to liability for the inaccuracy. Justice Oing granted defendant board’s motion to dismiss based on the defenses of collateral estoppel, failure to state a claim and expiration of the limitations period. The Appellate Division affirmed.
• IDT Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Index No. 603710/2017 (Sup Ct, NY County 2015), aff’d, 148 AD3d 484 (1st Dept 2017): Plaintiff client commenced an action against its former investment banker alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment arising out of investment banker’s alleged inducement of another investment client to breach an agreement with plaintiff client. Justice Oing held that the alleged misrepresentations by the investment banker did not support plaintiff client’s fraud claims. This decision was affirmed on appeal.
• Loreley Financing (Jersey) No. 3, Ltd v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Index No. 651633/2014 (Sup Ct, NY County 2016), 2016 WL 4063057, aff’d, 146 AD3d 683 (1st Dept 2017): Investors in a collateralized debt obligation backed by residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) commenced an action for fraud against investment bank that sold these securities. Justice Oing denied the investment bank’s motion to dismiss the fraud claim, finding that the allegations were sufficient to support the justifiable reliance element of the fraud claim. In that regard, Justice Oing rejected the investment bank’s argument that the investors had to make further inquiry, because that inquiry was not triggered in the absence of any hint of falsity in the investment bank’s representation. This decision was affirmed on appeal.
• Hellenic American Educational Foundation v. Trustees of Athens College in Greece, Index No. 603770/2007: This bench trial involved a 10-year-old dispute challenging the continued existence of a century-old Greco-American educational alliance concerning Athens College, a preeminent coeducational private preparatory school in Greece. On one side of the alliance were Greek Nationals, the Hellenic American Educational Foundation and its board of directors. On the other side of the Atlantic were Greek Americans, The Trustees of Athens College in Greece and its members. Justice Oing, in an extensive written decision, found in favor of The Trustees of Athens College in Greece after presiding over a bench trial lasting several months.
• In the Application of Jamie McCourt to compel Peter Cohen and Blackstone Advisory Partners LP to Appear to Give Testimony and to Produce Documents (In re L.A. Dodgers), Index No. 651046/2013: This dispute arose out of a divorce settlement between Jamie McCourt and Frank McCourt, who at the time was the owner of the L.A. Dodgers. In claiming that the $131 million divorce settlement was unfair, Jamie McCourt asserted that Frank McCourt induced her into believing that their assets were valued at less than $300 million. She claimed that the sale of the L.A. Dodgers for $2.3 billion provided Frank McCourt with $1.7 billion. Jamie McCourt served a subpoena on Frank McCourt’s investment advisor at Blackstone Group concerning the negotiations for the baseball team’s sale. Recognizing the potential for extensive litigation costs incurred by nonparties to a dispute, Justice Oing granted the motion to quash the subpoena to the extent of barring deposition testimony, but required the investment advisor to answer written inquiries concerning the firm’s advice to Frank McCourt about the baseball team’s value.
• Civil Rights

• Prior to his judicial career, Justice Oing served as deputy director for the New York City Districting Commission. In that position, he prepared and obtained approval for the Voting Rights Act Section 5 preclearance application to the U.S. Department of Justice for the 2003 City Council Redistricting Plan. Notably, unlike the prior redistricting plan submitted a decade earlier, in which the Justice Department interposed objections, this districting plan received no objections.
• Employment Law
• O’Connor v. Society Pass, Inc., 2024 WL 4508035 (1st Dept 2024): An employer alleged that due to the employee’s breach of an employment agreement it did not owe the employee any shares under the stock purchase warrant, as the employment agreement and warrant were a single, integrated contract. In a unanimous decision written by Justice Oing, the court found that the warrant was a stand-alone agreement, enforceable on its own terms and independent from the employment agreement. While the warrant referenced the employment agreement, the warrant did not contain any contractual language demonstrating the parties’ intent to integrate the employment agreement. The mere fact that the employment agreement was appended to the warrant was insufficient to demonstrate integration.
• Monaco v. New York University, 204 AD3d 51 (1st Dept 2022): This appeal involved the breach of contract claims of two tenured professors against their employer, New York University, for implementing a policy that reduced the salaries of tenured faculty if they failed to secure a minimum amount of grant funding. In writing for the unanimous court, Justice Oing found that the policy did not constitute a breach of the faculty handbook’s statement that “academic tenure is a means to a certain end, specifically … a certain degree of economic security to make the profession of teaching attractive to men and women of ability” because the statement was merely prefatory and did not give rise to contractual rights or obligations. Even if the statement were contractually binding, it did not include salary considerations. Furthermore, the salary reductions did not breach disciplinary policies that had the force of a contract, as failing to secure funding is not misconduct. Nonetheless, Justice Oing found that New York University violated an appointment letter agreement with one of the plaintiffs by reducing his salary under the new policy below the salary amount set forth in the letter.
• Insurance
• Alterra America Insurance v. National Football League, 2016 WL 6459522, Index No. 652813/2012: The National Football League (NFL) sought indemnification from its insurers for lawsuits commenced by former NFL players and their families who alleged they were entitled to insurance coverage for certain neurological injuries and conditions as a result of concussive impacts the former players sustained during their NFL careers. Justice Oing denied the NFL’s motion to dismiss this action and presided over the pretrial discovery proceedings. During the pretrial stage, the NFL continued to seek stays of discovery, arguing that the absence of the stays would jeopardize the global settlement efforts in the MDL action venued in the Pennsylvania federal district court. Ultimately, Justice Oing denied further stays and directed the NFL to engage in pretrial discovery. In making that ruling, Justice Oing reminded the parties that he would be overseeing discovery and resolving any disputes that might arise.
• Zurich American Insurance v. Sony Corporation of America, Index No. 651982/2011: This insurance coverage dispute arose out of a massive data breach concerning Sony, which exposed personal information of tens of millions of its users. The breach engendered more than 50 class action lawsuits against Sony, exposing it to losses estimated at $2 billion. Zurich American denied Sony’s claim for defense and indemnification. Justice Oing ruled in favor of Zurich American, finding that the underlying claims against Sony did not, under the policy’s coverage terms, constitute an act by Sony to have made an “oral or written publication in any manner of the material that violates a person’s right of privacy.” Justice Oing reasoned that the policy required Sony, as the policyholder, to perpetrate or commit the act and did not include acts carried out by a third party. Thus, he found that the criminal acts of third-party hackers were not a publication made by Sony, a finding buttressed by Sony’s extensive security measures to guard against breach and dissemination. Sony appealed, but the appeal was subsequently withdrawn pursuant to the parties’ stipulation.
• Intellectual Property
• Echostar Satellite LLC v. ESPN, Inc., Index No. 600282/2008: A dispute centered on licensing agreements involving the nascent high-definition cable television technology between plaintiff EchoStar Satellite (EchoStar), on the one hand, and certain subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company, on the other. EchoStar, which operates a direct broadcast satellite system under the trade name “DISH Network,” broadcasts television programming that it licenses from content providers such as Disney. Some of the programming was for the Disney Channel, Toon Disney and ESPN. EchoStar would pay to Disney the licensing fee under the agreements to access and broadcast the content and, in turn, would charge its subscribers an access fee. The parties’ dispute centered on whether the new technology was included in the licensing fee or whether there would be a surcharge for it. Justice Oing presided over the jury trial, which resulted in a verdict in favor of Disney and against EchoStar.
• Personal Injury
• DiBrino v. Rockefeller Ctr. North, Inc., 230 AD3d 127 (1st Dept 2024): This personal injury action involved a construction site accident in which plaintiff, a subcontractor’s employee, fell from an improperly secured ladder owned by a defendant, another subcontractor. In writing for the majority, Justice Oing found that there was no duty of care owed between subcontractors in the absence of a jural or contractual relationship. Justice Oing then found that plaintiff’s common law negligence claim could still not stand under the exceptions to the general rule that a contracting party does not owe a duty of care to a noncontracting third party, as defendant did not launch a force or instrument of harm. The ladder was merely left unattended in an open position, and plaintiff used it without permission, knowing that the ladder did not belong to his employer.
• Colt v. New Jersey Transit Corp., 206 AD3d 126 (1st Dept 2022), appeal dismissed, 39 NY3d 954 (2022): This appeal considered the sovereign immunity defense of defendant New Jersey Transit Corporation, an arm of the state of New Jersey, in a personal injury action brought in a trial court in New York County. Plaintiff was a pedestrian injured by defendant’s bus driver at the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York City. Due to New Jersey law requiring that a suit against a municipal corporation be commenced in the county in which the cause of action arose, plaintiff could not file suit in New Jersey. When plaintiff filed suit in New York, defendant moved to dismiss the action based on its sovereign immunity. In his majority opinion, Justice Oing found that while defendant in this case neither expressly consented to suit in New York nor waived the sovereign immunity defense, leaving plaintiff without redress for defendant’s tortious acts would be absurd and unjust. Justice Oing extended the doctrine of forum non conveniens to resolve this dilemma.
• Real Property
• M&E 73-75, LLC v. 57 Fusion LLC, 189 AD3d 1 (1st Dept 2020): In this appeal involving a failed real estate transaction, the buyer commenced an action against the seller, alleging claims for breach of contract and reformation and seeking specific performance. In affirming the motion court’s dismissal of the action, Justice Oing, writing for a unanimous court, held that the buyer failed to allege it substantially performed its contractual obligations and was willing and able to close as required to state a claim for specific performance.
• Matter of Rose Castle Redevelopment II, LLC v. Franklin Realty Corp., 184 AD3d 230 (1st Dept 2020), lv denied, 36 NY3d 906 (2021): This appeal involved an arbitration arising from a joint venture to develop real property in New York City for mixed residential and commercial use. Respondents would transfer ownership to petitioner for an amount dependent on the allowable square footage resulting from petitioner’s rezoning efforts. In writing for the unanimous court, Justice Oing held that an arbitration award must be upheld when the arbitrator offers even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached, regardless of errors of law and fact. There was reasonable support for the arbitrator's award finding that under the parties’ contribution agreement, petitioner owed only the guaranteed minimum minus the amount already paid.
• City Club of New York v. New York City Board of Standards & Appeals, 198 AD3d 1 (1st Dept 2021): In this Article 78 proceeding, the court, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Oing, held that respondent, the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals, rationally found that a zoning regulation on bulk distribution applied to petitioner’s entire lot, located in the Special Lincoln Square District, even though it straddled two zoning districts governed by different bulk regulations. Justice Oing reasoned that the split-lot zoning regulation requiring that each portion “be regulated by all the provisions applicable to the district in which such portion of the zoning lot is located” (New York City Zoning Regulation § 77-02) should be applied on a regulation-by-regulation basis. Here, the zoning regulation on bulk distribution provided that “[w]ithin the Special District, at least 60 percent of the total floor area permitted on a zoning lot” must be below a height of 150 feet from curb level (New York City Zoning Regulation § 82-34). Thus, by its plain language, the zoning regulation on bulk distribution applied to both portions of petitioner’s lot. Respondent’s finding here that the “Special District” referred to the Special Lincoln Square District was rational and entitled to deference. Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court’s decision to annul respondent’s determination to uphold the subject building permit.

Honors, Memberships, and Professional Activities

Selected Awards and Honors 

• Justice Louis J. Capozzoli Gavel Award, New York County Lawyers Association, Supreme Court Committee, 2019
• Golda Meir Memorial Award, Jewish Lawyers Guild, 2015
• Leadership Achievement Award, Judges and Lawyers Breast Cancer Alert (JALBCA), 2013
• Scholarship Recipient, Justice and Society, The Aspen Institute, 2011
• Administrative Leadership, Civil Court Practice Section, New York County Lawyers Association, 2011
• Supervising Judge of New York County Civil Court Appointment Recognition, Court Attorneys Association of the City of New York, 2010
• Judicial Elevation Recognition, Asian American Bar Association of New York, 2006
• Leadership Award, Law Secretaries & Law Assistants Collegium Inc., 2005 

Selected Memberships and Professional Affiliations 

• Commissioner, Franklin H. Williams Judicial Commission, 2021–2024
• Member, Chinese-American Planning Council Inc., 2001–2024
  • Director, 2002–2003, 2005–2024
• Member, New York Women’s Bar Association, 2001–2024
• Member, Jewish Lawyers Guild, 2001–2024
• Member, Asian American Bar Association of New York, 1998–2024
• Member, New York State Bar Association, 1990–2024
• Member, Columbia College/Columbia University Alumni Recruitment Committee, 1986–2024
• Member, New York City Bar Association, 1990–1992, 2000–2023
• Member, New York Pattern Jury Instruction Committee, 2017–2019
• Member, New York City Bar Association, Committee on State Courts of Superior Jurisdiction, 2014–2016, 2019–2023
• Co-Chair, New York State Unified Court System, Court Interpreter Advisory Committee, 2010–2017
• Member, The Brehon Law Society, 2003–2006

Selected Presentations and Speaking Engagements 

• Lead Panelist, “Choosing the Best Possible Jury,” Practising Law Institute, 2024
• Panelist, “View From Chambers, Judicial Engagement Through Education Initiative,” Institute on Complex Commercial Litigation, Center for Judicial Events & Clerkships and Corporate Law Center, 2023
• Judge, Mediation Tournament, New York State Bar Association, 2023
• Panelist, “An Evening With the Justices of the Appellate Division, First Department,” New York State Bar Association, 2022
• Panelist, “Interim Applications in the Appellate Division (First and Second Departments),” New York City Bar Association, 2021
• Panelist, “Our Story: Asian American Judges Share Their Paths to the Bench, Diversity, and Thoughts of the Future,” New York City Bar Association, 2021
• Judge, Inaugural Mediation Tournament, New York State Bar Association, 2019
• Panelist, “The Evolution of Commercial Courts: Where Are They Now and Where Are They Going?” (CLE credit), American Bar Association, Commercial Litigation Track CLE Program, 2017
• Panelist, “Dispositive Motions” (CLE credit), New York State Bar Association, Commercial and Federal Litigation Section (ComFed), Commercial Litigation Academy, 2017
• Panelist, “Basic Lessons on Ethics & Civility 2017” (CLE credit), New York State Bar Association, Commercial and Federal Litigation Section (ComFed), Committee on Continuing Legal Education and the Committee on Attorney Professionalism, 2017
• Panelist, “Current Developments in Commercial Division Practice” (CLE credit), New York City Bar Association, Litigation Committee, 2012, 2016
• Panelist, “Breakfast Series Program, Recent Changes to the Commercial Division Rules,” New York City Bar Association, Committee on State Courts of Superior Jurisdiction, 2016
• Panelist, “Injunctive Relief: A Judge’s Perspective” (CLE credit), New York Women’s Bar Association, Federal Practice Committee, 2015
• Panelist, “Trial by Jury” (CLE credit), Practising Law Institute, 2014–2024
• Panelist, Third Annual Commercial Litigation Academy (CLE credit), 2014
• Panelist, “Ethics for Litigators” (CLE credit), New York City Bar Association, 2014
• Panelist, “Advice from the Experts: Successful Strategies for Winning Commercial Cases in New York State Courts” (CLE credit), New York County Lawyers’ Association, 2012, 2013
• Speaker, “Fall Conference, Trial Advocacy Program” (CLE credit), Asian American Bar Association of New York, 2012
• Panelist, “Don’t Break the Rules: Uniform Rules of State Trial Court” (CLE credit), New York City Bar Association, 2012
• Judge, “Inaugural Trivia Bowl,” Asian American Journalists Association, New York Chapter, 2012
• Panelist, “The Examination Before Trial: Honing Your Deposition Skills, What You Need to Do Before Calling the Court,” New York State Bar Association, 2012
• Panelist, “Annual Language Access Panel,” New York City Bar Association, Women in the Courts Task Force, 2012
• Speaker, Nassau County Bar Association, Commercial Litigation Committee, 2012
• Speaker, New York City Bar Association, Litigation Committee, 2012
• Panelist, “Pathways to the Bench and Beyond,” New York City Bar Association, 2012
• Panelist, “Judges’ Pet Peeves: Tips from the Bench of Trial Practice” (CLE credit), Practising Law Institute, 2011, 2012

Selected Publications and Media References 

• “Hon. Jeffrey K. Oing Interviewed on Amici Podcast for AAPI Heritage Month,” Asian American Bar Association of New York, aabany.org, May 29, 2024
• “Appellate Division Justice Jeffrey Oing, Candidate for Chief Judge, Viewed as Highly Personable Consensus-Builder,” New York Law Journal, Dec. 7, 2022
• “AABANY Co-Sponsors Virtual Fireside Chat with Prominent Asian American Judges on January 26, 2021,” aabany.org, March 22, 2021

Background and Education

Background and Education 

• Associate Justice, Appellate Division, First Department, Supreme Court of the State of New York, 2017–2024
• Judge, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Commercial Division, 2011–2017
• Civil Court, New York County
  • Supervising Judge, 2009–2010
  • Acting Supreme Court Judge, 2009–2010
  • Judge, 2004–2009
• Deputy General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Council of the City of New York, 2002, 2003
• Deputy Director, New York City Districting Commission, 2002–Jun
• Supreme Court of the State of New York
  • Law Secretary, Hon. Walter B. Tolub, 2000–2002
  • Principal Appellate Court Attorney, Appellate Division, Law Department, 1998–2000
  • Law Secretary, Hon. Marylin G. Diamond, 1995–1998
  • Principal Court Attorney, Law Department, 1993–1995
• Litigation Associate, Herold and Haines, 1992–1993
• Assistant Counsel, Office of Counsel to the Governor of New Jersey, 1992
• Litigation Associate, Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine (dissolved), 1990–1992
• Law Clerk, Hon. Chief Judge Robert N. Wilentz, Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1989–1990
• J.D., New York University School of Law, 1989
  • Editorial Staff, Journal of International Law and Politics
• B.A., Columbia College, Columbia University, 1986

Bar Admissions 

• New York, 1990
• United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, 1991
• United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 1991