She may be the city’s most objectionable lawyer.

A de Blasio administration lawyer has been sanctioned — and the city is facing a $10,000 fine — because she raised objections more than 600 times during a single, eight-hour deposition in a wrongful arrest lawsuit against the Big Apple.

Amatullah Booth was hit with the legal penalty for objecting to nearly every question posed to Police Officer John Essig, one of several codefendants along with the city in the Brooklyn federal court suit.

“There was no strategic advantage to be gained by making those objections,” Gabriel Harvis, the lawyer representing plaintiff Hector Cordero, told The Post Monday. “It was just a matter of going too far.”

Harvis was questioning Essig Sept. 22, 2016 about his role in Cordero’s arrest outside a Clinton Hill bodega two years earlier. Cordero was strip-searched and charged with dealing drugs but the charges were ultimately dropped.

Booth said, “Objection” so frequently during the routine pre-trial deposition that it accounted for 83 percent of the 397 pages of testimony, Harvis calculated.

Among them were challenges to questions that Booth claimed were “harassment,” “irrelevant,” “already asked and answered” or pertained to “privileged information.”

“In an eight-hour deposition, 80 to 100 objections for form — I would say that sounds like quite a lot but in the top end of the ballpark,” said Stephen Gillers, who teaches legal ethics at New York University. “Six hundred is harder to fathom. I’ve never heard of that.”

In one of many examples cited in court papers, Booth carried on objecting to a line of questioning over Essig’s memo book — even though she’d already been warned by the court that the only acceptable objection was to the form of a question.

Booth: Objection. Asked and answered.

Harvis: Asked and answered is not an appropriate objection.

Booth: Harassment.

Harvis: None of those are.

Booth: It is harassment.

Harvis: Okay, you can only say objection to form.

Booth: That is not –

Harvis: That is what the court just said. We had it read back.

Booth: Like I said, it’s harassment and if it continues, I’m going to direct him not to answer the question. So if you can’t to keep asking the same questions, that is going to be the result.

Harvis: Okay, that’s fine.

Harvis then carried on asking Essig the question, to which Booth immediately objected, “Objection.

Harassment. I’m directing my client not to answer that question.”

Booth instructed Essig not to answer at least 20 times — and also threatened to walk out more than once.

And the city lawyer was unrelenting as Harvis tried asking the officer about an incident in 2014:

Ms. Booth: Objection. And I’m directing the witness to not answer that question. It has been asked and answered several times.

Mr. Harvis: It’s not an objection.

Ms. Booth: Well, it’s harassment.

Mr. Harvis: “To ask if there was a TAC meeting is harassment?

Ms. Booth: You went through a very long series of questions in regard to TAC plans, TAC meetings, whether one occurred on this day. We’re not going back down that road.

Mr. Harvis: I can ask him any questions I want.

Ms. Booth: I’m directing him not to answer because that is harassment.

Mr. Harvis: I can ask him about it as many times as I want.

Ms. Booth: I’m directing him not to answer.

Mr. Harvis: Okay, fine. We’ll make a record and then we’ll move for costs.

Ms. Booth: Yes, that’s what you do.

Q: Did you – who led the TAC meeting that day?

Ms. Booth: Objection. I’m directing the witness not to answer that question.

Harvis asked the court to impose sanctions against Booth for repeatedly objecting to his “run-of-the-mill questions.”

“[She] made the deposition basically impossible and the environment grew so toxic that I couldn’t even get a basic question answered.

It was frustrating,” he said.

Magistrate Judge Cheryl Pollak sided with Harvis, ordering the city to pay for attorneys’ fees and costs of Essig’s deposition over Booth’s “plethora” of objections.

“The behavior of [Booth] clearly impeded the progress of and unnecessarily extended the length of the deposition, particularly given that certain questions … were left unanswered,” Pollak wrote in her 17-page decision Friday.

Harvis expected the fee would exceed $10,000.

Pollak also said that on “at least several occasions,” Booth’s objections appeared as though she was coaching Essig on how to answer.

The judge granted Harvis another chance to depose the cop before the case heads to trial.

“I do feel vindicated by the court’s decision,” said Harvis. “It shows that there is a line, even for attorneys, that you really can’t cross.”

It’s not clear whether the Law Department will appeal Pollak’s decision.

“We take quite seriously any finding that calls into question whether one of our lawyers engaged in sanctionable conduct,” said city Law Department spokesman Nick Paolucci. “We will review the decision and respond accordingly.”