Abandoned (3215[c])

Understanding New York’s One-Year Rule for Default Judgments

New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) Section 3215(c) establishes a strict timeline that can make or break litigation cases. When a defendant fails to answer or appear, plaintiffs might assume they have unlimited time to pursue a default judgment. However, New York law imposes a harsh penalty for delay: if you don’t move for default judgment within one year of the defendant’s default, your case can be dismissed as abandoned.

The one-year abandonment rule under CPLR 3215(c) serves critical case management objectives in New York’s court system. By requiring plaintiffs to promptly pursue default judgments, the statute prevents cases from accumulating on court dockets indefinitely while defendants remain in legal limbo. This promotes judicial efficiency and ensures that parties who have defaulted can eventually achieve finality rather than facing potential judgment years after the default occurred.

Unlike discretionary time extensions under CPLR 2004 or excusable default provisions under CPLR 5015, the abandonment provision operates with mandatory force. Courts possess minimal discretion to excuse delays absent extraordinary circumstances. The statute’s plain language requires dismissal when the one-year period expires without a default judgment application, creating a bright-line rule that leaves little room for judicial flexibility even in sympathetic cases.

Case Background

Acupuncture Works, PC filed a no-fault insurance action against New York City Transit seeking payment for medical services rendered to an injured transit passenger. After service of the summons and complaint, defendant New York City Transit failed to answer or otherwise appear in the action, creating a default under CPLR 3215.

Despite defendant’s default, plaintiff took no action to enter a default judgment. The one-year anniversary of the default passed without plaintiff moving for judgment. Eventually, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to enter default judgment well beyond the one-year statutory deadline.

Defendant opposed the motion, arguing that plaintiff’s failure to timely seek default judgment triggered the mandatory dismissal provision of CPLR 3215(c). Plaintiff attempted to excuse the delay by offering explanations for why the default judgment motion was not timely filed, but provided limited substantiation for those excuses and made no showing of a meritorious cause of action as required by case law interpreting the statute.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Acupuncture Works, PC v New York City Tr., 2014 NY Slip Op 51513(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2014)

“Where a plaintiff fails to move for entry of a default judgment within one year of a defendant’s default in answering, dismissal of the underlying action as abandoned is required in the absence of a proper showing by plaintiff of a viable excuse for the delay and a meritorious cause of action (_see_CPLR 3215; Giglio v NTIMP, Inc., 86 AD3d 301, 308 ; Hoppenfeld v Hoppenfeld, 220 AD2d 302, 303 ).”

The failure to answer, appear or move within one year will usually spell the end of a case since dismissal is mandatory.

Legal Significance

The Acupuncture Works decision exemplifies the harsh consequences of CPLR 3215(c)‘s mandatory dismissal provision. Unlike other procedural defaults that courts may excuse based on law office failure or other reasonable explanations, the one-year abandonment rule admits few exceptions. This reflects legislative judgment that cases should not remain pending indefinitely after defendants default.

The decision reinforces the dual requirement for avoiding dismissal once the one-year period has elapsed: plaintiffs must demonstrate both a viable excuse for the delay AND a meritorious cause of action. This conjunctive test creates a high barrier to relief. Even compelling excuses will not save a case lacking merit, and even meritorious claims will be dismissed if the delay cannot be adequately explained.

Significantly, the court’s interpretation leaves little room for equitable considerations. Courts generally will not weigh the prejudice to defendants or the importance of the underlying claim when the statute’s requirements are unmet. The abandonment provision operates mechanically once its conditions are satisfied, distinguishing it from more flexible provisions allowing courts to exercise discretion based on case-specific circumstances.

Practical Implications

For plaintiff’s counsel, the CPLR 3215(c) deadline demands rigorous calendaring and case management protocols. Law firms should implement tickler systems that flag cases approaching the one-year anniversary of defendant’s default. When defendants fail to appear, immediate attention to default judgment procedures becomes essential rather than allowing cases to drift.

Practitioners should not assume that defendant’s default means the case will resolve easily or that delay in seeking judgment will be excused. The opposite is true: default cases require prompt action to avoid the abandonment trap. Even when settlement discussions are ongoing with defendant or insurance carriers, formal default judgment applications should be filed within the one-year window to preserve the action.

Defense attorneys should carefully track the one-year period in cases where their clients have defaulted. When plaintiffs fail to move for default judgment timely, defendants possess a powerful basis to seek dismissal with prejudice. This converts what appeared to be a losing case into complete victory, eliminating liability altogether rather than simply contesting damages.

Key Takeaway

CPLR 3215(c) creates a mandatory dismissal requirement that courts cannot ignore. Unlike situations where reasonable excuses might be accepted, the one-year abandonment rule demands both a viable excuse for delay AND a meritorious cause of action. This dual requirement makes recovery extremely difficult once the deadline passes.

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this post’s publication in 2014, CPLR 3215(c) provisions regarding default judgment timelines and abandonment procedures may have been subject to amendments or interpretative changes through case law developments. Additionally, court administrative practices and filing procedures related to default judgment applications may have evolved. Practitioners should verify current statutory language, recent appellate decisions, and local court rules before relying on the abandonment timeline discussed in this analysis.

Related Articles

• A new caveat on the one year period to enter a judgment
• Dismissal for failure to take a default itself failed
• CPLR 3215(c) and 5015(a)