Key Takeaway
Court rejects attorney's heavy workload as excuse for missing deadline, emphasizing that mere neglect cannot justify vacating default orders in legal proceedings.
When Heavy Workload Isn’t Enough: Court Rejects Attorney’s Excuse for Default
In New York’s legal system, attorneys who miss critical deadlines face an uphill battle when seeking to undo the consequences. The recent case of A.B. Med., PLLC v CNA Ins. Co. serves as a stark reminder that courts hold legal professionals to high standards when it comes to meeting procedural requirements.
This decision from the Appellate Term highlights a common but unsuccessful defense: claiming a heavy workload as justification for missing deadlines. The case involved a medical provider’s attempt to vacate a default order after their attorney failed to timely oppose an insurance company’s motion. What makes this case particularly noteworthy is not just the initial failure, but the attorney’s nearly 10-month delay in seeking relief, compounding the procedural missteps.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
A.B. Med., PLLC v Cna Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 50199(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)
“Here, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it had a reasonable excuse for failing to timely submit written opposition to defendant’s prior motion, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. In support of plaintiff’s motion to vacate the default order, plaintiff’s attorney alleged that her late submission of an affirmation in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment was the result of her heavy workload. Her explanation to justify the default amounted to nothing more than mere neglect, which is not accepted as an excusable default (see Strunk v Revenge Cab Corp., 98 AD3d 1029 ; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Preferred Trucking Serv. Corp., 42 Misc 3d 88 ). Moreover, plaintiff’s attorney offered no reason for waiting almost 10 months to move to vacate the default order”
Key Takeaway
Courts consistently reject attorney workload as grounds for excusing missed deadlines, classifying such explanations as “mere neglect.” This case reinforces that legal professionals must implement proper case management systems and cannot rely on being overwhelmed as a defense. The extended delay in seeking relief only strengthens the court’s position against vacating defaults based on inadequate excuses.
