Key Takeaway
Court accepts law office failure as valid excuse for missing conference when defendants provide detailed, credible explanation for miscommunication between attorneys.
When a party fails to appear at a scheduled court conference, they risk having a default judgment entered against them. However, New York courts recognize that certain circumstances may constitute a valid excuse for non-appearance, including what’s known as “law office failure.” This legal concept acknowledges that breakdowns in communication within law firms or between attorneys can sometimes provide grounds for excusing a default.
The key question courts face is determining when such failures rise to the level of a reasonable excuse. Not every attorney mistake or oversight will suffice – the explanation must be both detailed and credible. Courts must balance the need to maintain efficient case management with fairness to parties who may have been genuinely prejudiced by attorney errors beyond their control.
This is particularly relevant in cases involving defaults, where timing and procedural compliance are critical. The standards for what constitutes reasonable excuse can vary, and parties seeking to vacate default judgments must meet specific legal requirements.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Madonna Mgt. Servs., Inc. v Naghavi, 2014 NY Slip Op 08965 (2d Dept. 2014)
“Here, the defendants have provided a “detailed and credible” explanation for their failure to appear at the scheduled conference (Henry v Kuveke, 9 AD3d 476, 479; see CPLR 2005; Gironda v Katzen, 19 AD3d 644, 645). Miscommunications that occurred between the defendants, the defendants’ previous counsel, and the defendants’ newly retained attorney constituted a law office failure.”
Key Takeaway
This decision demonstrates that courts will excuse non-appearance when parties can provide detailed and credible explanations for attorney miscommunications. The case shows that reasonable excuse standards can be met when breakdowns occur between multiple attorneys representing the same party, particularly during transitions between old and new counsel.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this post’s publication in 2014, CPLR 2005 and related default judgment procedures may have been subject to legislative amendments, court rule modifications, or evolving judicial interpretations regarding law office failure standards. Additionally, case law developments over the past decade may have refined the criteria for what constitutes “detailed and credible” explanations for attorney failures. Practitioners should verify current statutory provisions and recent precedential decisions when advising clients on default judgment vacatur strategies.
