You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO ANSWER...

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion to for leave to file a default judgment should have been granted and defendant’s cross-motion to compel the acceptance of a late answer should have been denied:

To defeat the plaintiffs’ facially adequate CPLR 3215 motion and be relieved of its default in answering the complaint, the defendant had to show either that it did not default, or that it had a reasonable excuse for its default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action … . In order to compel the plaintiffs to accept service of its untimely answer, the defendant also had to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay in answering and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 3012[d]… . “[S]uccessful opposition to a CPLR 3215 motion for leave to enter a default judgment requires the same showing as an affirmative motion for leave to extend the time to answer” … .

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s cross motion to compel the acceptance of its late answer, as the defendant did not offer a reasonable excuse for its failure to serve a timely answer in this action. The defendant, through an affidavit of its paralegal manager in its Massachusetts office, acknowledged that it received the complaint as of November 3, 2015, but blamed its failure to answer on a clerical error in its Mitchel Field, New York, office, which resulted in the complaint never being assigned to a claims handler. The affidavit of the defendant’s paralegal manager failed to provide any details surrounding the bare claim that a clerical error, which purportedly occurred in an office in which she did not work, caused the failure of the defendant to timely answer … . Moreover, the paralegal manager did not address why the defendant did not take any action upon being served with the plaintiffs’ initial motion for leave to enter a default judgment against it or the resulting court order …. .

Since the defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for its failure to timely serve an answer, it is unnecessary to consider whether it demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense … . Clarke v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 04250, 2nd Dept 5-31-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/DEFAULT JUDGMENT (CIVIL PROCEDURE, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN HER FOOT BECAME ENTANGLED IN CORDS OR TUBES CONNECTED TO MEDICAL EQUIPMENT IN A HOSPITAL ROOM; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CORDS OR TUBES WERE OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
COURT’S ERRORS IN DEALING WITH NOTES FROM THE JURY, INCLUDING SUBSTITUTING THE WORD ‘INITIALLY’ FOR ‘INTENTIONALLY,’ REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL DEEMED INVALID, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
RES JUDICATA APPLIES TO ISSUES WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A SMALL CLAIMS ACTION, NO NEED TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL TO BRING A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY ACTION AGAINST A FORMER PARTNER IN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD AND RENDERED SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF VILLAGE IN THIS CONTRACT ACTION AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 9802; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S ANTICIPATORY-REPUDIATION COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE VILLAGE’S PARTICIPATION IN DISCOVERY WAS NOT DESIGNED TO MISLEAD THE DEFENDANT AND DID NOT TRIGGER THE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF VIDEOTAPE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).
Title Insurance Company Insures Only Whether a Property Has Legal Access to a Street, Not Whether Physical Access to the Street Is Possible
THE EXTENSION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CPLR 213-B(1) WHICH ALLOWS A VICTIM OF A CRIME TO SUE THE PERPETRATOR WITHIN SEVEN YEARS OF THE DATE OF CRIME APPLIES ONLY WHERE THE PERPETRATOR HAS BEEN “CONVICTED OF [THE] CRIME;” A PERPETRATOR WHO HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER HAS NOT BEEN “CONVICTED OF A CRIME” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 213-B(1) (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON AN AUTHORIZATION LETTER WHICH WAS NOT... PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO DISTRIBUTED...