You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY ANSWER...

DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY ANSWER THE COMPLAINT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment should not have been granted because defendant did not offer a reasonable excuse for the failure to timely answer:

Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s cross motion, in effect, to vacate its default in answering the complaint and to compel the plaintiff to accept its late answer … . “A defendant who has failed to timely answer a complaint and who seeks leave to file a late answer must provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action” … .  Here, the defendant failed to proffer any excuse, let alone a reasonable excuse, for failing to serve an answer prior to the tolling period created by the executive orders issued by former Governor Andrew Cuomo as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic …  as well as its failure to serve an answer or move to compel acceptance of its late answer for months after the expiration of the executive orders. Since the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether it sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense … . 195-197 Hewes, LLC v Citimortgage, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05065, Second Dept 8-31-22

Practice Point: Here defendant’s failure to offer a reasonable excuse for failing to timely answer the complaint required denial of defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment. Apparently the COVID toll of time limits did not suffice.

 

You might also like
SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; BECAUSE THE NOTICE WAS NOT SENT TO EACH BORROWER IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Firefighter Injured in Apartment Fire Which Stemmed from the Use of a Cooking Stove to Provide Heat Can Sue the Owner of the Apartment House Based Upon the Owner’s Failure to Provide Adequate Heat
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROOF WHEN THE STAIRWAY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS CONSTRUCTED, THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE BUILDING CODE PROVISION; DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT MERELY AMPLIFIED THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS; HOWEVER, THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE AMENDED BILLS OF PARTICULARS WERE PROPERLY STRUCK (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Intervention Described
THERE WAS A SURPLUS AFTER THE FORECLOSURE SALE OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY; DEFENDANT HAD ENTERED A HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT WITH CITIBANK; CITIBANK, NOT DEFENDANT, WAS ENTITLED TO THE SURPLUS FUNDS (SECOND DEPT).
“Special Errand” Exception to the “Going and Coming” Rule Applied—Workers’ Compensation Claim Is Plaintiff’s Sole Remedy
Appellant, Who Was Only Mentioned in the Complaint As the Holder of a Second Mortgage, Properly Appeared in the Action by Serving a Notice of Appearance Which Entitled Appellant to Be Kept Informed of the Progress of the Proceeding—There Is No Filing Requirement for a Notice of Appearance

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

EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF... DEFENDANTS’ REPEATED FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WARRANTED...