Key Takeaway
First Dept. ruling expands definition of "rejected" answers, allowing default motions within 15 days to effectively reject untimely responses in litigation.
Understanding Answer Rejection and Default Procedures
In New York civil litigation, timing is everything. When a defendant files an answer to a complaint, strict deadlines govern whether that response will be accepted by the court. Traditionally, courts have required formal rejection of untimely answers before proceeding with default judgment applications. However, a recent First Department decision has significantly expanded the ways an answer can be considered “rejected,” potentially making it easier for plaintiffs to obtain default judgments.
The procedural landscape surrounding defaults has evolved considerably over the years. Courts have grappled with various scenarios where defendants attempt to avoid default judgments, from challenging the timing of default entries to appealing vacatur decisions. Understanding these procedural nuances is crucial for both plaintiffs seeking to enforce their rights and defendants trying to preserve their ability to defend against claims.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Baucage, 2017 NY Slip Op 00015 (1st Dept. 2016)
In a case of first impression, the Appellate Division held that an answer can be rejected through filing a default motion within 15-days after its receipt. This would mean that sending a proposed clerk’s judgment when one has not been created would also be sufficient to reject an untimely answer. Therefore, the notion that an untimely answer must be formally “rejected” has been expanded beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.
This is another example of what seems to be the benefits of haphazard practice.
Key Takeaway
This ruling dramatically changes the default judgment landscape by allowing implicit rejection of untimely answers through procedural motions rather than requiring explicit formal rejection. For practitioners, this means that filing a default motion within 15 days of receiving an untimely answer can effectively serve as rejection, streamlining the path to default judgment while potentially catching unprepared defendants off guard.
