Default not granted and a questionable appeal

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.

Legal Significance

The Metropolitan Property decision exemplifies New York’s strong judicial preference for resolving cases on their merits rather than through procedural forfeitures. The court’s willingness to accept a “not particularly compelling” law office failure excuse reflects settled appellate precedent establishing that extensions of time to answer require only “good cause,” a notably lower standard than the “reasonable excuse” and “meritorious defense” showing required to vacate defaults after judgment is entered.

The court’s analysis highlights several factors that influenced its decision: absence of prejudice to plaintiff, plaintiff’s prior agreement to extend time to answer, and the relatively modest nature of the delay. Importantly, the court explicitly held that defendants seeking pre-answer extensions need not demonstrate meritorious defenses—a requirement that only applies when vacating defaults after answers have been struck or judgments entered. This distinction creates a significant procedural gap that savvy defendants can exploit through timely cross-motions.

The decision also reflects practical realities of litigation practice. Courts recognize that law office failures occur with some frequency due to heavy caseloads, staffing changes, communication breakdowns, and inadvertent calendar errors. While such excuses don’t justify defaults after judgment, they constitute acceptable “good cause” for modest extensions when no prejudice results and cases remain at early procedural stages.

Jason Tenenbaum’s strategic criticism of plaintiff’s litigation approach deserves emphasis. The plaintiff here committed two fundamental errors: first, opposing an extension that courts routinely grant; and second, appealing that denial when appellate precedent clearly favored defendants. This double miscalculation consumed litigation resources, delayed case resolution, and ultimately achieved nothing beyond forcing plaintiff back to the position they would have occupied had they simply accepted the answer initially.

Practical Implications

For defendants facing potential defaults, this decision provides a clear procedural roadmap. Rather than allowing default judgment to be entered and then moving to vacate under CPLR 5015, defendants should immediately cross-move for an extension of time to answer upon receiving plaintiff’s default motion. This strategy offers multiple advantages: lower burden of proof (good cause versus reasonable excuse), no requirement to demonstrate meritorious defenses, and better likelihood of success given courts’ preference for merits-based resolution.

Defense counsel should prepare extension motions that emphasize lack of prejudice to plaintiffs rather than attempting to justify the delay. Courts care less about why the answer was late than whether allowing it will harm the plaintiff’s position. Demonstrating that discovery hasn’t commenced, depositions haven’t been scheduled, or trial dates haven’t been set can help establish the absence of prejudice.

For plaintiffs, Jason Tenenbaum’s strategic insight proves invaluable: default motions against represented defendants rarely succeed and waste valuable litigation resources. A more effective approach involves: (1) accepting late answers without contest; (2) immediately demanding discovery; (3) moving for summary judgment as soon as defendants’ positions become clear; and (4) pursuing costs and fees for any delays caused by late answers. This strategy achieves faster case resolution while conserving resources that default motion practice would squander.

Plaintiffs should also recognize that prior stipulations extending answer deadlines (as occurred in Metropolitan Property) significantly undermine subsequent default motions. Courts view such stipulations as evidence that delays haven’t prejudiced plaintiffs and that parties contemplated flexible deadlines. Plaintiffs who previously granted extensions should expect courts to continue that leniency absent changed circumstances demonstrating actual prejudice.

The decision also counsels plaintiff’s counsel to evaluate whether pursuing defaults serves client interests. In cases with strong liability and damages evidence, summary judgment offers a faster path to judgment with less appellate risk than default proceedings. Clients benefit more from quick, affordable resolutions than from protracted procedural battles unlikely to succeed.

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.

Related Articles

• More Defaults
• Failure to enter a default excused
• Default granted where answer is 6 months later