Antonios T. Antoniou

The defendant successfully moved to withdraw deemed admissions arising from an inadvertent failure to respond to a request to admit.

The defendant sought costs of the motion.

The plaintiff argued no costs should be awarded because the defendant was seeking an indulgence.

The court awarded costs to the defendant, finding the plaintiff acted unreasonably by engaging in 'gotcha litigation' and refusing to consent to the withdrawal when there was no prejudice.

The plaintiff served a request to admit on the defendants.

Counsel for the moving defendant inadvertently failed to respond to five requests, resulting in deemed admissions of liability and damages.

The plaintiff subsequently brought a motion for judgment based on these deemed admissions.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to withdraw the deemed admissions under Rule 51.05.

The court granted the motion, finding that the failure to respond was inadvertent, there was no non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff, and there were triable issues on the merits.

The plaintiff, acting as Estate Trustee, brought a motion for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property held by the deceased's sister.

The deceased and her sister had taken title as joint tenants following a refinancing arrangement, but the sister had not paid the agreed consideration.

After the deceased's death, the sister registered a survivorship application and further encumbered the property.

The court found that the transfer was gratuitous, raising a presumption of resulting trust, and that the Estate had met the threshold of demonstrating a triable issue regarding its interest in the property.

The motion was granted, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce a $200,000 settlement under Rule 49.09, arguing they had accepted a 2016 offer from the defendants in 2020.

The court found that while the 2016 letter contained a valid Rule 49 offer that remained open for acceptance, the plaintiffs' purported acceptance in 2020 introduced new terms regarding mutual releases and costs involving parties not represented by the offeror's counsel.

Consequently, the purported acceptance was a counter-offer, and no agreement on essential terms was reached.

The motion to enforce the settlement was dismissed.

The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident and commenced tort and accident benefits actions.

After multiple changes in counsel and a capacity assessment confirming she was capable, the plaintiff became self-represented.

The case management judge attempted to appoint Amicus Curiae to assist the plaintiff at trial, but the relationship between the plaintiff and proposed counsel broke down.

The plaintiff insisted on representing herself and refused further assistance.

The court reluctantly discontinued efforts to appoint Amicus Curiae and scheduled the trial and outstanding motions.