Reasonable excuse satisfied despite claim of lack of personal jurisdiction

Understanding Reasonable Excuse for Opening Default Judgments in New York

In New York litigation, receiving proper service of process is fundamental to ensuring that defendants have their day in court. However, what happens when service appears to have been made but the defendant claims never to have received the papers? This scenario plays out frequently in New York courts, and the resolution often depends on whether the defendant can demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the underlying claims.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum has extensive experience helping clients throughout Long Island and New York City navigate complex procedural issues, including motions to open default judgments. Our attorneys understand the nuanced requirements for demonstrating reasonable excuse and the strategic considerations that can make the difference between success and failure in these critical motions.

The Legal Framework for Opening Default Judgments

Under New York law, a defendant seeking to open a default judgment must demonstrate two essential elements: (1) a reasonable excuse for the default, and (2) a potentially meritorious defense to the underlying action. The interaction between these requirements creates a complex legal landscape where procedural missteps can have lasting consequences.

A Case Study in Reasonable Excuse

In another CPLR issue, the Appellate Division affirmed the order of the Supreme Court that allowed a defendant to open an entered default.

Rodgers v 66 E. Tremont Hgts. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2010 NY Slip Op 00552 (1st Dept. 2010)

“In the case at bar, defendant submitted affidavits wherein it denied ever being served with process. However, upon receipt of a letter from plaintiff’s counsel which contained a copy of the pleadings, defendant immediately forwarded the correspondence and pleadings to its insurer. Thus, it was reasonable for defendant to believe that its insurer would take the appropriate action to appear and defend the action.”

Analyzing the Reasonable Excuse Standard

The Rodgers case illustrates several important principles that New York courts apply when evaluating whether a defendant has established a reasonable excuse for failing to appear in an action.

Denial of Service Can Support Reasonable Excuse

The court accepted the defendant’s claim that it was never properly served with process. This demonstrates that courts will consider credible denials of service as potentially supporting a reasonable excuse for default, especially when supported by detailed affidavits explaining the defendant’s position.

However, simply denying service is not enough. The defendant must provide a credible explanation of what happened and why the default occurred. Courts are particularly skeptical of bare denials that are not supported by specific factual allegations.

Prompt Action Upon Notice Can Demonstrate Reasonable Excuse

One of the most significant factors in the Rodgers case was the defendant’s immediate response upon learning of the litigation. When the defendant received a letter from plaintiff’s counsel containing a copy of the pleadings, it immediately forwarded the correspondence to its insurer.

This prompt action demonstrated several things:

• The defendant did not attempt to ignore the litigation once aware of it
• The defendant had reasonable expectations about how the matter would be handled
• The defendant’s failure to appear was not due to willful neglect or indifference

Reasonable Reliance on Third Parties

The court found that it was reasonable for the defendant to believe its insurer would take appropriate action to defend the lawsuit. This reflects a broader principle that defendants can sometimes establish reasonable excuse based on their reasonable reliance on others to handle legal matters on their behalf.

However, this principle has limits. Courts will not excuse defaults when defendants unreasonably delegate responsibility or fail to follow up on critical legal matters. The key is whether the reliance was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

Common Scenarios Where Reasonable Excuse May Be Found

Based on New York case law, several scenarios commonly support findings of reasonable excuse:

Service Defects and Improper Service

When service of process is defective or improper, defendants may establish reasonable excuse for failing to appear. This includes situations where:

• Process servers provide false affidavits of service
• Service is made on the wrong person or at the wrong address
• Statutory requirements for service are not followed
• Service is made on someone without authority to accept service

Excusable Law Office Failures

Sometimes, reasonable excuse can be established based on law office failures, but only when those failures are truly excusable. Examples might include:

• Serious illness or incapacity of the attorney
• Death of the attorney handling the case
• Extraordinary circumstances beyond the attorney’s control

However, routine calendar mix-ups, clerical errors, or simple oversight generally do not constitute reasonable excuse.

Reliance on Insurance Companies

As demonstrated in Rodgers, reasonable reliance on insurance companies can sometimes support a reasonable excuse defense. This is particularly common in cases involving:

• Motor vehicle accidents
• Premises liability claims
• Professional liability matters
• General liability insurance claims

The key is demonstrating that the reliance was reasonable and that the defendant took prompt action to notify the insurer upon learning of the litigation.

The Interaction with Personal Jurisdiction Claims

The Rodgers case is particularly interesting because the defendant’s motion presumably included a claim of lack of personal jurisdiction. The title of the case suggests this was one of the arguments raised, yet the court still found reasonable excuse satisfied.

This illustrates an important principle: claims about personal jurisdiction defects do not automatically preclude findings of reasonable excuse. Courts recognize that jurisdictional challenges and reasonable excuse determinations address different concerns:

• Jurisdictional challenges concern the court’s power to adjudicate the dispute
• Reasonable excuse determinations focus on whether the defendant’s failure to appear was understandable under the circumstances

Strategic Considerations

When representing defendants in default situations involving potential jurisdictional issues, practitioners should consider raising both arguments. Even if the jurisdictional challenge fails, a successful reasonable excuse claim can still provide relief from the default judgment.

Practical Guidance for Long Island and NYC Practitioners

For attorneys practicing in the busy courts of Long Island and New York City, understanding how to handle default judgment situations is crucial for effective client representation.

Acting Quickly Upon Notice

The most important lesson from Rodgers is the importance of acting quickly upon learning of litigation. Whether you represent individual defendants or corporate entities, immediate action upon notice can be crucial to establishing reasonable excuse.

This means:

• Responding immediately to any notice of litigation
• Investigating the circumstances of service promptly
• Preparing and filing motions to open default judgments without delay
• Notifying insurance carriers or other interested parties immediately

Documentation is Critical

Courts require detailed affidavits explaining the circumstances that led to the default. Vague or conclusory statements are insufficient. Successful motions typically include:

• Detailed explanations of the defendant’s knowledge (or lack thereof) regarding the litigation
• Specific descriptions of any service attempts or problems
• Documentation of immediate action taken upon learning of the case
• Evidence supporting any claims about reliance on third parties

Don’t Forget the Meritorious Defense Requirement

Even with a perfect reasonable excuse, defendants must also demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the underlying claims. This requires:

• A factual explanation of the defendant’s position on the merits
• Legal theories supporting the defense
• Evidence or documentation supporting the defendant’s version of events

Insurance Company Considerations

The Rodgers case highlights the special role that insurance companies play in default judgment scenarios. For both individual defendants and corporate entities, understanding how insurance coverage affects default situations is crucial.

Duty to Defend Obligations

Insurance companies with a duty to defend must be notified promptly of any potential claims. When defendants reasonably rely on insurers to provide defense counsel, this reliance can support reasonable excuse claims.

However, defendants cannot simply assume their insurers will handle everything. Best practices include:

• Providing written notice to insurers as required by the policy
• Following up to confirm the insurer is providing defense counsel
• Understanding any reservations of rights or coverage issues

When Insurance Coverage is Disputed

Sometimes insurers deny coverage or dispute their duty to defend. In these situations, defendants must be prepared to act on their own behalf while pursuing coverage disputes with their insurers.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Experience in handling default judgment motions reveals several common mistakes that can doom otherwise meritorious applications:

Waiting Too Long to Act

New York courts expect defendants to act promptly upon learning of default judgments. Unexplained delays can undermine claims of reasonable excuse, even when the underlying facts support relief.

Insufficient Factual Detail

Courts require specific factual allegations explaining why the default occurred. General statements about not receiving service or not knowing about the case are insufficient without supporting detail.

Failing to Address the Merits

Some attorneys focus exclusively on procedural arguments while neglecting to address the underlying merits. Remember that reasonable excuse alone is not enough—you must also demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense.

Inconsistent Positions

When raising multiple arguments (such as jurisdictional challenges and reasonable excuse claims), ensure that the positions are consistent and mutually supportive rather than contradictory.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long do I have to move to open a default judgment?

While there’s no specific statutory time limit, New York courts expect defendants to act promptly upon learning of a default judgment. Generally, motions should be made within one year, but even shorter delays may require explanation.

Can I challenge personal jurisdiction while also claiming reasonable excuse?

Yes, as the Rodgers case demonstrates. These are separate legal theories that can be pursued simultaneously, though you should ensure your arguments are consistent.

What if my insurance company was supposed to defend me but didn’t?

This situation may support a reasonable excuse claim, especially if you promptly notified the insurer and reasonably believed they would provide defense counsel. However, you may also have claims against the insurer for breach of contract.

Is it enough to just deny that I was served?

No. Courts require detailed factual allegations explaining why you believe service was improper and what you knew about the litigation. Simple denials are insufficient.

The Broader Context: Ensuring Access to Justice

The reasonable excuse doctrine serves important policy goals in the New York legal system. It helps ensure that defendants have meaningful access to the courts and that judgments are not entered based on procedural defaults when defendants have legitimate defenses to pursue.

However, the doctrine must be balanced against the need for finality in litigation and the rights of plaintiffs to obtain timely resolution of their claims. This balance is reflected in the requirement that defendants demonstrate both reasonable excuse and meritorious defenses.

Conclusion: The Importance of Prompt, Professional Action

The Rodgers case provides a valuable reminder that even when service of process issues arise, defendants who act promptly and professionally upon learning of litigation can often obtain relief from default judgments. The key is demonstrating that the default was not due to willful neglect or indifference, but rather resulted from circumstances beyond the defendant’s reasonable control.

For practitioners, the lesson is clear: immediate action upon notice of litigation, thorough investigation of the circumstances, and prompt filing of well-supported motions are essential for success in default judgment scenarios.

Get Experienced Legal Representation

If you’re facing a default judgment or need help navigating complex procedural issues in New York courts, don’t handle it alone. The experienced attorneys at the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum have the knowledge and skills necessary to evaluate your situation and pursue all available remedies.

We understand the time-sensitive nature of default judgment situations and the importance of acting quickly to protect our clients’ rights. Our team serves clients throughout Long Island and New York City, providing strategic guidance and aggressive representation in all types of civil litigation matters.

Whether you need to open a default judgment, defend against a lawsuit, or pursue claims on your own behalf, we have the experience to guide you through the process. We know how to investigate service issues, develop reasonable excuse arguments, and present compelling meritorious defense claims.

Time is often critical in default judgment situations. Call us today at (516) 750-0595 for immediate consultation. Don’t let procedural issues prevent you from defending your rights. Contact us now to learn how we can help you navigate the complex world of New York civil procedure and protect your interests every step of the way.

Related Articles

• Understanding CPLR 3212(a): Critical Timing Rules for Summary Judgment Motions in New York
• The CPLR 3212(g) paradigm
• Understanding Legal Defenses in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
• No-Fault Verification Requirements: When Partial Compliance Isn’t Enough
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

---

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this post’s publication in 2010, there may have been amendments to CPLR provisions governing default judgments and reasonable excuse standards, as well as updates to court rules regarding electronic service and notice requirements. Additionally, appellate decisions over the past 16 years may have refined the legal standards for demonstrating reasonable excuse and meritorious defenses. Practitioners should verify current CPLR provisions and recent case law developments when advising clients on motions to open default judgments.