Robert E. Antonacci II
How Judge Antonacci rules, drawn from 2 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Antonacci
Robert E. Antonacci II has served as a New York Supreme Court justice in the Fifth Judicial District since 2020 and is assigned to the Commercial Division in Onondaga County. He previously served as Onondaga County comptroller and as a New York state senator. He earned his undergraduate degree from Le Moyne College and his law degree from Syracuse University College of Law.
Judge Antonacci's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Antonacci, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Preliminary Conference Stipulation and Order ↗
- Special Rules for the Onondaga County Commercial Division Tax Certiorari Part ↗
Key rules
Motions
Dispositive motion briefs are limited to 25 pages, with replies limited to 10 pages.
“Memoranda of law shall not exceed 25 pages in length; reply memoranda of law shall not exceed 10 pages in length”
Motions
Unless authorized otherwise, file dispositive motions within 60 days after the trial note of issue.
“Unless otherwise authorized by the Court, all dispositive motions shall be made no later than the 60th day after filing of the trial note of issue.”
Motions
Move to strike a tax certiorari trial note of issue within 20 days of service.
“A motion to strike a trial note of issue must be made within twenty (20) days of service of the trial note of issue.”
Trial
File a tax certiorari pretrial memorandum at least seven days before trial, limited to five pages.
“the parties must file a pre-trial memorandum of law at least seven (7) days before commencement of the trial. The pre-trial memorandum of law must outline both the stipulated and disputed facts and issues and shall not exceed five (5) pages in length.”
How Judge Antonacci decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Michael P. v. Dombroski, he considered evidence submitted on a dismissal motion as if it were a summary-judgment motion and dismissed the dog-bite complaint. The Fourth Department reversed, finding that the defendants' own submissions raised triable factual issues.
“Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and sought an award of attorney's fees and costs on the ground that the action was frivolous; defendants' affidavits submitted in support of the motion, however, stated that they were seeking summary judgment.”
In Pace v. Crouse Health Hospital, Antonacci ordered a new trial limited to damages unless the plaintiff accepted specified reductions in the jury awards. The Fourth Department affirmed the post-trial order.
“Supreme Court granted the motion in part by ordering a new trial on the issue of damages unless within 30 days of entry of the order, plaintiff consented to specific reductions of the jury's damages awards”
In Fisch v. City of New York, Antonacci treated the plaintiff's request to reverse an earlier venue decision as another motion for leave to reargue and denied it. The Fourth Department dismissed the appeal because a denial of reargument is not appealable.
“Plaintiff then filed a motion to ‘[r]everse [d]ecision.’ The court treated the filing as another motion for leave to reargue the February order and denied plaintiff’s motion by order entered July 16, 2024”
Cautions
In University Hill Realty v. Akl, the Fourth Department reversed Antonacci's summary judgment for the defendant property owners because their submissions left factual questions about an implied brokerage contract and failed to establish entitlement to judgment on unjust enrichment.
“the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.”
A settlement-enforcement order can be undone on a pure legal-authority ground even where the underlying facts (an email agreement between counsel) are undisputed: his order enforcing a purported workers'-compensation lien waiver was reversed because only the Workers' Compensation Board, not the court, has statutory authority to approve such an agreement.
“the court had no authority to determine that Safety National waived its statutory lien”
In Jarrod W.S. v. Jordan-Elbridge Central School District, Antonacci denied leave to reargue and to serve a late notice of claim. The Fourth Department modified the order to allow a late notice for J.S.'s claims and dismissed the appeal from the reargument denial.
“the order is modified in the exercise of discretion by granting the motion in part insofar as it sought leave to serve a late notice of claim with respect to the claims asserted on behalf of J.S.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Supreme Court, inter alia, determined that petitioner does not suffer from a mental abnormality as that term is defined in section 10.03 (i), granted the petition, and directed petitioner's unconditional discharge from the custody of the New York State Office of Mental Health.”
“The order, inter alia, continued the commitment of petitioner to a secure treatment facility. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.”
“The order granted the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.”
“The order granted the motion of defendants to dismiss the complaint and awarded attorney's fees and costs to defendants. ... dismissing the complaint with prejudice, adjudging that the action was frivolous, and awarding defendants costs and reasonable attorney's fees.”
“The order, among other things, granted plaintiffs' motion insofar as it sought an order enforcing the terms of the purported settlement agreement between plaintiff David L. Miller and Safety National Casualty Corp. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion ... is denied.”
“The order denied the motion of defendant for summary judgment. It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.”
“The judgment awarded plaintiff money damages after a nonjury trial. ... unanimously modified on the law by setting aside the verdict with respect to damages for future pain and suffering and as modified the judgment is affirmed without costs.”
“The order, among other things, denied the motion of defendant Hiroshi Kato, M.D. for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint and any cross-claims against him. It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.”
“Supreme Court, inter alia, ... granted those parts of the [980 James defendants'] motion with respect to the Labor Law sections 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action and the third-party claim for contractual indemnification ... unanimously modified on the law by denying those parts ... seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law section 240 (1) cause of action and the Labor Law section 241 (6) cause of action ... and reinstating those causes of action.”
“denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the first and second causes of action as against defendants Time Cap Development Corp. and 980 James Street, LLC”
“in effect, denied Interior Builders' motion [for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and all cross-claims against it] ... We therefore further modify the order by granting Interior Builders' motion insofar as the 980 James defendants did not oppose it seeking summary judgment dismissing the 980 James defendants' cross-claim for contractual indemnification against it.”
“The order denied the motion of plaintiff for a default judgment and granted the cross-motion of defendants to dismiss the complaint.”
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant Global Industries, Inc.’s motion for an order granting summary judgment dismissing the entire complaint of the Plaintiff Kathy Arcangeli, as Administrator of the Estate of Jay Emery Arcangeli, Deceased, as against the Defendant Global Industries, Inc., is hereby granted.”
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendants Lea Michael Hares, Frances M. Hares, Jesse James Hares, Individually and/or Collectively d/b/a Hare Farms’ motion for an order granting summary judgment dismissing the entire complaint of the Plaintiff Kathy Arcangeli, as Administrator of the Estate of Jay Emery Arcangeli, Deceased, as against the Defendants Lea Michael Hares, Frances M. Hares, Jesse James Hares, Individually and/or Collectively d/b/a Hare Farms is hereby granted.”
Draft for Judge Antonacci with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Antonacci, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Antonacci's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace