Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff, LLP Reviews, Ratings & Complaints

122 E 42nd St #3800, New York, NY 10168

Public profile and review data last refreshed Aug 12, 2026.

4.7
116 Google reviews
Claimed Google Business Profile

Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff, LLP is a personal injury attorney in New York, New York with a 4.7-star rating across 116 tracked Google reviews. The current build retrieved 116 reviews for this profile and analyzed 105 text reviews. The firm has an owner reply on 86% of retrieved reviews, 73% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 21% of analyzed reviews. Its review pattern is fairly consistent based on a consistency index of 84.8.

The most common review themes are explicit recommendation (73%), professionalism (34%), and case results (26%). Reviews in the sample mention matters involving motorcycle, slip and fall, medical malpractice, and wrongful death. Use these signals as due-diligence inputs rather than proof of specialty or likely outcome.

Review verdict

Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff, LLP Review Summary and Due-Diligence Questions

These direct answers separate what the public review dataset can confirm from licensing, disciplinary, and case-fit questions that require independent verification.

What clients praise

The strongest recurring praise signals in the analyzed review sample are explicit recommendation (73%), professionalism (34%), and case results (26%). These percentages describe text labels in the captured sample, not independently verified service claims.

Is Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff, LLP legitimate?

Law Leaderboard can confirm that this page represents a public Google Business listing for Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff, LLP at 122 E 42nd St #3800, New York, NY 10168. The listing has 116 tracked Google reviews and is marked as claimed on Google. This does not independently verify attorney licensing, disciplinary history, insurance, or eligibility to handle a specific matter; check the relevant state bar and speak with the firm before hiring.

Is Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff, LLP a good law firm?

Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff, LLP has a 4.7/5 public Google rating across 116 tracked reviews. Law Leaderboard retrieved 116 reviews and analyzed 105 review texts for this profile. In that sample, the firm has an owner reply on 86% of retrieved reviews, 73% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 21% of analyzed reviews. These are public feedback signals, not a legal endorsement or prediction of case results.

What do Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff, LLP reviews complain about?

The recurring concern labels found in the analyzed negative-review sample are poor communication (13%) and unprofessional (13%). Percentages describe the relevant review sample and should be read with the rating distribution and coverage notes below.

Does Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff, LLP respond to reviews?

Public review data shows an owner reply on 86% of the reviews retrieved for Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff, LLP. This measures responses to public reviews, not communication with clients during a case. Communication appears in 21% of analyzed review texts.

Firm Snapshot Table

Use this table to see the difference between the firm's public review footprint, the reviews retrieved into the current build, and the text reviews that feed the NLP metrics on this page.

MetricValueWhat it means
Review Evidence Score70.2/100Moderate evidence; public-review evidence only.
Within-market score percentile50th percentileCompared with the fixed New York, NY cohort.
Tracked Google reviews116Public review count currently visible on the profile.
Reviews retrieved116Review records stored in the current build.
Text reviews analyzed105Review texts used for NLP-derived praise, complaint, and communication metrics.
Owner response rate86%Share of retrieved reviews with an owner reply.
Explicit recommendation rate73%Share of analyzed reviewers who explicitly recommend the firm.
Communication mentions21%Share of analyzed reviews that mention communication.
Consistency index84.8Higher scores indicate a more consistently positive rating pattern.

Identity-linked office intelligence

Where This Office Sits in New York, NY

An office’s within-market percentile shows how its Review Evidence Score compares with the other profiles in that market. It is a relative position, not a probability, quality rating, or prediction. The score and percentile reflect public-review evidence only—not legal skill, licensing, case outcomes, misconduct, or suitability.

Compare offices side by side →

Evidence score

70.2/100

Score percentile

50th percentile

Rating percentile

50th percentile

Review-count percentile

50th percentile

Owner-reply percentile

Not scored

Evidence strength and entity relationship

Moderate evidence from 105 analyzed review texts. The identity match uses exact source IDs in the private graph; those provider IDs are not exposed here.

Law Leaderboard office ID
llb-office-8087fc7dd93b84da
Law Leaderboard brand ID
llb-brand-72a53310c872e783
Brand relationship
Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff, LLP

QA-published themes for this office

The published themes are communication, responsiveness or delays, and outcome language. Theme prevalence is calculated only for offices whose theme result passed minimum sample, confidence, and external precision gates. Outcome language reflects an unverified claim in a review; it is not independent confirmation of what happened.

No office-level theme result passed every current publication gate. This is not evidence that reviewers never mentioned these topics.

Release llb-consumer-intelligence-2026-08-12-r4. Trend fields remain withheld until the separate multi-snapshot publication gate is met.

Case Types Mentioned in Reviews

motorcycleslip and fallmedical malpracticewrongful death

Quick Stats

Reviews/Month
0.7
Avg Review Length
331 chars
Local Guide %
26%

Practice Areas

Law firmLegal servicesTrial attorney

About

Since 1922, Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff, LLP has represented personal injury and medical malpractice victims across New York City, including Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Isl...

What Our Data Shows

The sections below break this firm into measurable signals: responsiveness, communication mentions, review consistency, praised attributes, complaint themes, historical activity, and source-freshness notes. Read them together, not as isolated stats.

Performance Metrics

Based on analysis of 105 text reviews in the current build.

Owner Response Rate
86%
replies to reviews
Explicit Recommendation Rate
73%
of analyzed reviewers
Communication Mentions
21%
of analyzed reviews
Professionalism Mentions
34%
of analyzed reviews
Results Mentions
26%
of analyzed reviews
Compassion Mentions
11%
of analyzed reviews
Average response time: 215.6 days

Rating Distribution

5 star
104 (90%)
4 star
3 (2.6%)
3 star
1 (<1%)
2 star
2 (1.7%)
1 star
6 (5.2%)
92% positive reviews 7% negative reviews Consistency index: 84.8

What Clients Praise

explicit recommendation 73.3% of reviews
professionalism 34.3% of reviews
case results 25.7% of reviews
communication 21% of reviews
dedication 19% of reviews

Common Concerns (from negative reviews)

poor communication (12.5%)
unprofessional (12.5%)

Other Medical Malpractice in New York

Sources, Freshness & Limitations

Sources

  • Google Business profile data for the firm, including address, phone, website, business attributes, and aggregate public rating.
  • 116 retrieved reviews and 105 text reviews used to calculate praise, complaint, communication, and response metrics for this profile.
  • Consumer intelligence release llb-consumer-intelligence-2026-08-12-r4, derived from llb-depth50-research-2026-08-11-r1, supplies immutable office and brand IDs, market context, evidence-strength tier, and published practice/city memberships.
  • Aggregate business and review-analysis fields rendered from the same exported firm record used by the city rankings; reviewer identities and review text are not republished.

Freshness

  • Business profile last collected: 2026-08-09 23:45:17Z.
  • Review records last collected: 2026-08-11 20:29:12Z; derived metrics last analyzed: 2026-08-12 08:10:02.
  • 116 total Google reviews tracked; 116 reviews retrieved; 105 text reviews analyzed.
  • Consumer intelligence release published 2026-08-12; that is a derived-release date, not a new profile or review observation.
  • Methodology version: review-evidence-v1.0.0. Build packaging timestamp: 2026-08-12 00:00:00Z; this is not a source-refresh date.

Limitations

  • Public review volume, retrieved review records, and text reviews analyzed are different counts and should not be treated as interchangeable.
  • Historical comparison tiles appear only when retrieved review history reaches both full twelve-month windows and each window meets the rating-count threshold.
  • Review-derived case-type and praise signals show what appears in the sample; they do not independently verify board certification or case outcomes.
  • A within-market percentile is a relative position inside the fixed market cohort. It is not a probability, national rank, or legal-performance grade.
  • A theme appears only when that office result passes the published minimum sample, confidence, and external precision gates; absence is not proof that the topic never appears.
  • This page helps you evaluate a firm’s public client-feedback footprint, but hiring decisions still require direct due diligence.
← View all New York medical malpractice lawyers ranked by public review signals
Report an outdated or incorrect detail on this profile →