"The Robing Room: NJ State Judges

Hon. Michael Antoniewicz	See Rating Details
Superior Court Judge Superior Court
Bergen County Vicinage 2	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 5.8 - 1 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 1.0 - 4 rating(s)	Please send me alerts on this judge E-mail Address:

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address ()

* *

Confirm E-mail Address

* * *

Zip

Occupation

Add a comment only

Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.

General Rating Criteria

* Temperament		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Scholarship		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Industriousness		(1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
* Ability to Handle Complex Litigation		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Punctuality		(1=Chronically Late,10=Always on Time)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters		(1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge		(1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling		(1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)

Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation		(1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail		(1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions		(1=Not at all Involved, 10=Very Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)

Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation		(1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions		(1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination		(1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintiff)

Comments

Please type what you see below:

Not an even number!

What others have said about Hon. Michael Antoniewicz

Comments

Litigant

Comment #: NJ4944
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
There are so many previous cases but only focused on ones that were regarding the judgement on the discretion of the court and not factual evidence provided. Good luck to those that have him as the Judge residing on their case that do the right thing by supplying requested documentation. Sad since I always believed in the judicial system where laws and evidence are the basis of decisions but obviously mean nothing since his opinion matters more since everything is at the discretion of
the court.

Litigant

Comment #: NJ4943
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Did not look through evidence provided and based all decisions on discretion of the court. Must have had a bad morning or didn’t want to be bothered looking through the evidence provided in the motion. He only allowed request of motion filed and did not allow argument in response to motion.

Other

Comment #: NJ4934
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Did not allow oral argument or consider any evidence that was provided. Awarded all judgements in defendant's favor who was incompliant to requested documents, proofs, and has not complied with previous court orders. His decisions and judgements were made before the hearing even began.

Other

Comment #: NJ4933
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Did not allow oral argument or consider any evidence that was provided. Awarded all judgements in defendant's favor who was incompliant to requested documents, proofs, and has not complied with previous court orders. His decisions and judgements were made before the hearing even began.

Other

Comment #: NJ4932
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Did not even look at evidence provided or allow any explanation. Totally dismissed all previous court orders and based judgements with no proofs, evidence, or arguments. Defendant also did not comply with documents requested yet ruled in favor of them.

Litigant

Comment #: NJ4805
Rating:2.0

Comments:
Completely ignored large swaths of evidence and arguments and seemed to draw his own conclusions without considering case law or previous court orders, including one from the appelate court.

Litigant

Comment #: NJ4789
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Agree with above posters. He doesn’t know the law on RO and he misses important evidence. Idiot imho.

Litigant

Comment #: NJ4781
Rating:2.0

Comments:
Judge doesn’t seem to consider important evidence. Opinions don’t match the evidence presented in trial.
Don’t seem to have a grasp on NJ restraining order laws.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NJ4385
Rating:5.8

Comments:
Judge has been assigned to RO cases. He doesn’t know the law and doesn’t seem to care all that much that he doesn’t. I will say he has gotten a little better in the past year or so. He’s even-tempered which is a plus but that’s not going to stop him from injecting his opinion in place of actual law.