Key Takeaway
New York court confirms that parties seeking to vacate default orders under CPLR 5015(a)(1) must prove their motion was filed within the one-year deadline.
This article is part of our ongoing defaults coverage, with 90 published articles analyzing defaults issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Default judgments can have devastating consequences for defendants who fail to respond to lawsuits. However, New York law provides mechanisms for vacating these defaults under specific circumstances. One of the most commonly invoked provisions is CPLR 5015(a)(1), which allows courts to relieve parties from orders due to excusable default. But there’s a critical catch: the application must be made within one year of service of the order with notice of entry.
The case of Taveras v Philibert illustrates an important procedural requirement that many litigants overlook. When seeking relief under this statute, it’s not enough to simply demonstrate excusable default or a meritorious defense. The moving party must also prove they filed their motion within the statutory deadline. This burden of proof requirement can make or break a vacatur motion, regardless of how compelling the underlying circumstances may be.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Taveras v Philibert, 2013 NY Slip Op 04420 (1st Dept. 2013)
“The motion court properly denied plaintiffs’ CPLR 5015(a)(1) motion to vacate the prior order, granted on plaintiffs’ default. Under that statutory provision, a party seeking such relief must move to vacate the order within one year of service of the order with notice of entry (see Caba v Rai, 63 AD3d 578, 580 ). As the movant, it was plaintiffs’ burden to establish their right to the relief, including that their motion was timely made.”
The movant must establish that the application was made within the year. Seems simple enough?
Key Takeaway
The burden is always on the moving party to prove compliance with CPLR 5015(a)(1)‘s one-year deadline. Courts will not assume timeliness, and failure to meet procedural requirements can doom an otherwise valid motion. Practitioners must meticulously document when orders were served and ensure their clients understand these strict time limitations when considering default relief strategies.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 post, there may have been amendments to CPLR 5015(a)(1) procedures, modifications to the one-year deadline requirements, or changes in how courts interpret the burden of proof standards for timeliness in vacatur motions. Practitioners should verify current CPLR provisions and recent case law developments before relying on the procedural requirements discussed in this post.
Related Articles
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Default Judgments in New York Practice
Default judgments arise when a party fails to answer, appear, or respond within required time limits. Vacating a default under CPLR 5015 requires showing a reasonable excuse for the failure and a meritorious defense or cause of action. In no-fault practice, defaults occur frequently in arbitration and court proceedings, and the standards for granting and vacating defaults have generated substantial case law. These articles analyze default practice, restoration motions, and the circumstances under which courts excuse procedural failures.
90 published articles in Defaults
Keep Reading
More Defaults Analysis
Civil Court shenanigans
Civil Court procedural delays and discovery disputes in no-fault insurance provider case, including stay orders and preclusion motions in New York courts.
Apr 24, 2021Interest of justice vacatur
New York court grants vacatur of default judgment in no-fault insurance case where claim was barred by res judicata, demonstrating interests of justice standard.
Mar 17, 2021Understanding Foundation Requirements in Medical Malpractice Expert Testimony
New York medical malpractice expert testimony foundation requirements. Learn critical standards for expert witness preparation in Nassau and Suffolk County cases.
Dec 28, 2008Defaults…
Court denies motion to vacate no-fault insurance default judgment where provider's attorney cited heavy workload as excuse, ruling mere neglect insufficient under CPLR 5015.
Nov 4, 2017Entering judgment on a settlement – not what you thought
Court rules Kings County Clerk lacked authority to enter clerk's judgment on settlement stipulation requiring notice and unspecified amount under CPLR 3215(i)(1).
Aug 24, 2015Shell game
Court case analysis where defendant's motion to renew and reargue was denied after defaulting on no-fault insurance summary judgment opposition papers.
Apr 5, 2013Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a default in New York civil litigation?
A default occurs when a party fails to respond to a legal action within the required time frame — for example, failing to answer a complaint within 20 or 30 days of service under CPLR 320. When a defendant defaults, the plaintiff can seek a default judgment under CPLR 3215. However, a defaulting party can move to vacate the default under CPLR 5015(a) by showing a reasonable excuse for the delay and a meritorious defense to the action.
What constitutes a 'reasonable excuse' to vacate a default?
Courts evaluate reasonable excuse on a case-by-case basis. Accepted excuses can include law office failure (under certain circumstances), illness, lack of actual notice of the proceeding, or excusable neglect. However, mere neglect or carelessness is generally insufficient. The movant must also demonstrate a meritorious defense — meaning they have a viable defense to the underlying claim that warrants a determination on the merits.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a defaults matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.