Key Takeaway
Court grants extension to answer despite weak law office failure excuse. Attorney questions plaintiff's strategy of pursuing default instead of summary judgment.
Understanding Default Judgments and Strategic Missteps in No-Fault Cases
Default judgments occur when a defendant fails to respond to a lawsuit within the required timeframe. However, New York courts often show considerable leniency when defendants seek extensions to file their answers, even when their excuses are less than compelling. This case demonstrates both the courts’ reluctance to grant defaults and raises questions about litigation strategy.
The Metropolitan Property case illustrates a common scenario in no-fault insurance litigation where an insurance company sought a default judgment against defendants who failed to timely answer. The defendants’ law office failure excuse wasn’t particularly strong, yet the court still granted them additional time to respond. This outcome reflects the well-established principle that New York courts prefer resolving cases on their merits rather than through procedural defaults.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Braun, 2014 NY Slip Op 06283 (1st Dept. 2014)
“The motion court providently exercised it discretion in granting defendants’ cross motion for an extension of time to interpose an answer. Under the circumstances, although defendants’ assertion of law office failure “is not particularly compelling, it constitutes good cause for the delay” (Lamar v City of New York, 68 AD3d 449, 449 ). There is no evidence that plaintiffs have been prejudiced, and the record shows that plaintiffs had previously agreed to an extension of time for defendants to answer. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contentions, a meritorious defense was not required for defendants to be granted an extension of time to answer (see Interboro Ins. Co. v Perez, 112 AD3d 483 ; Cirillo v Macy’s, Inc., 61 AD3d 538, 540 ).”
I read this and I asked myself why Plaintiff did not accept the answer and just move for summary judgment? Interboro/Perez (my contribution) and the litany of other cases shows that a less than a compelling excuse is all that is necessary to defeat a motion for leave to enter a default. Seems like a suicide march, and for no reason.
Key Takeaway
Given the low threshold for excusing late answers in New York courts, pursuing default judgments often proves counterproductive. Plaintiffs may achieve better results by accepting late answers and immediately seeking summary judgment, especially when the underlying case has strong merits.
