Key Takeaway
Court finds that failure to stipulate to adjournment can constitute law office failure, providing grounds to vacate summary judgment entered on default.
When facing a motion for summary judgment, attorneys must navigate strict deadlines and procedural requirements. Sometimes, despite good faith efforts, circumstances arise that prevent timely opposition papers from being filed. The question becomes: when does an attorney’s failure to oppose constitute excusable law office failure versus inexcusable neglect?
A recent First Department decision demonstrates how courts analyze these situations, particularly when an attorney attempts to secure an adjournment but the opposing party refuses to stipulate. This case illustrates the delicate balance between holding attorneys accountable for meeting deadlines while recognizing that genuine obstacles can arise in the practice of law.
The decision also highlights the importance of documenting efforts to resolve scheduling conflicts and the strategic considerations attorneys face when default judgments loom. Understanding when courts will find reasonable excuse for procedural defaults can be crucial for both plaintiffs and defendants in litigation.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Santiago v Valentin, 2015 NY Slip Op 01159 (1st Dept. 2015)
“Plaintiff provided an attorney’s affirmation describing that the failure to submit opposition was due to a delay in receiving an updated medical report from plaintiff’s treating physician.
Further, plaintiff explained that after defendant denied his third request to stipulate to an adjournment, he believed the only recourse was to wait for a decision and order from the court, and thereafter, make a motion to vacate the default judgment. As such, there is no evidence in the record that plaintiff’s default was due to any deliberate, willful, or contumacious conduct.”
Key Takeaway
The court found that an attorney’s failure to oppose summary judgment could constitute excusable law office failure when the delay resulted from waiting for medical records and the opposing party refused multiple requests to stipulate to an adjournment. The key was demonstrating that the default was not due to deliberate or willful conduct, but rather arose from reasonable reliance on standard litigation practices.
