The famous briefing schedule

Briefing Schedules and Their Consequences in No-Fault Litigation

In New York civil litigation, parties frequently enter into stipulated briefing schedules to manage the orderly submission of motion papers. These agreements, while procedural in nature, carry significant consequences when violated. The question arises: what happens when a party misses deadlines established by a consensual briefing schedule, particularly when the opposing party suffers no apparent prejudice?

The Appellate Term’s decision in Longevity Medical Supply, Inc. v State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. addresses this common scenario, examining whether courts should strictly enforce agreed-upon briefing deadlines or exercise discretion when a party later seeks to excuse their default. The case also demonstrates the interplay between briefing schedule defaults and the requirements for opening defaults under CPLR 5015(a)(1), which requires both reasonable excuse and meritorious opposition.

This procedural issue affects countless no-fault cases where busy practices struggle to meet multiple overlapping deadlines. The distinction between voluntary briefing schedule violations and involuntary defaults becomes critical to determining what showing is necessary to excuse non-compliance.

Case Background

Plaintiff medical provider Longevity Medical Supply brought a no-fault action against State Farm seeking reimbursement for medical supplies provided to an injured patient. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the action, and the parties entered into a stipulated briefing schedule governing the submission of opposition papers and any cross-motions.

Plaintiff failed to serve its opposition papers and cross-motion for summary judgment within the time frame established by the briefing schedule. On February 20, 2014, the Civil Court granted defendant’s motion, stating that defendant’s motion was granted because no timely opposition was served and that plaintiff’s untimely cross-motion would not be considered based on the parties’ briefing stipulation.

Plaintiff subsequently moved to vacate the February 20, 2014 order. By order entered November 18, 2014, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate, reiterating that because the opposition and cross-motion were untimely served, the court refused to consider those papers based on the parties’ briefing stipulation. Plaintiff appealed both the underlying dismissal and the denial of vacatur.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 50118(U)(App, Term 2d. Dept. 2017)

I have never been a fan, since where there is no prejudice, what is accomplished through this nonsense?

(1) Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment and submitted papers in opposition to defendant’s motion. In an order entered February 20, 2014, the Civil Court granted defendant’s motion, stating that “efendant’s motion is granted as no timely opposition was served. Plaintiff’s cross motion is not being considered because it was untimely. This action is hereby dismissed.” Thereafter, plaintiff moved, among other things, to vacate the February 20, 2014 order. By order entered November 18, 2014, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion, stating that “he opposition cross motion on the underlying motion were untimely served, the court refused to consider those papers based on the parties’ briefing stipulation.”

(2) It is well settled that a party seeking, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), to open its default in [*2]opposing a motion must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion (see Suede v Suede, 124 AD3d 869 ; Shkolnik v Beyderman, 43 Misc 3d 143, 2013 NY Slip Op 52033 ; see also D & R Med. Supply, Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 35 Misc 3d 136, 2012 NY Slip Op 50785, *1-2 ).

(3) The affirmation of plaintiff’s attorney provided a detailed and credible showing of law office failure, which constituted an adequate excuse for plaintiff’s default in timely opposing defendant’s motion (see Estrada v Selman, 130 AD3d 562, 562-563 )

The end result here is immaterial.

Legal Significance

This decision establishes important principles about the treatment of briefing schedule violations. The Appellate Term confirmed that missing a consensual briefing deadline constitutes a “default” within the meaning of CPLR 5015(a)(1), requiring the defaulting party to demonstrate both reasonable excuse and meritorious opposition to obtain relief. This framework treats briefing schedule violations similarly to other forms of default, despite their consensual origin.

The decision also clarifies what constitutes an adequate “reasonable excuse” for law office failure. The court found that plaintiff’s attorney’s affirmation provided a “detailed and credible showing” of law office failure that satisfied the reasonable excuse prong. This suggests that courts will look beyond bare assertions of busy schedules or administrative oversights, requiring specific explanations of the circumstances that led to non-compliance.

Significantly, the Appellate Term reversed the lower court’s refusal to consider plaintiff’s late papers despite the stipulated briefing schedule. This reversal indicates that while parties can agree to briefing deadlines, those agreements do not create absolute waivers of the right to seek judicial relief from defaults. Courts retain discretion to excuse defaults even when they stem from violated stipulations, provided the defaulting party meets the CPLR 5015(a)(1) requirements.

The decision reflects tension between judicial efficiency and substantive justice. Strict enforcement of briefing schedules promotes orderly case management and respects party autonomy in setting their own deadlines. However, dismissing potentially meritorious cases based solely on missed deadlines—particularly absent any showing of prejudice to the opposing party—can produce unjust results.

Practical Implications

For practitioners, this decision provides both warning and opportunity. The warning: stipulated briefing schedules must be taken seriously, as violations can result in dismissal. Courts will not simply excuse late submissions because the parties agreed to the deadline rather than the court imposing it. The procedural consequence of missing a briefing deadline is a “default” requiring excuse under CPLR 5015(a)(1).

The opportunity: even when briefing deadlines are missed, all is not necessarily lost. A detailed showing of law office failure combined with evidence of meritorious opposition can resurrect a case. The key is acting promptly to move for vacatur and providing specific, credible explanations for the delay rather than generic excuses.

The decision also counsels against rigid enforcement of briefing schedules absent prejudice. When a party files opposition papers slightly late but the opposing party suffers no harm, courts may exercise discretion to consider the late submission if proper excuse is shown. This flexibility serves justice while still maintaining respect for agreed-upon deadlines.

Key Takeaway

Missing a stipulated briefing deadline constitutes a default requiring reasonable excuse and meritorious opposition under CPLR 5015(a)(1) to excuse. However, courts retain discretion to consider late submissions when detailed and credible law office failure explanations are provided, even when parties have contractually agreed to specific deadlines. The decision balances respect for consensual briefing schedules with the principle that procedural defaults should not automatically result in dismissal of meritorious claims, particularly when no prejudice results from the delay.

Related Articles

• A default that is more than meets the eyes
• Why Law Office Failure Excuses Must Be Detailed to Open Default Judgments in NY
• CPLR 5015(a)(1) in New York Personal Injury Cases: Setting Aside Default Judgments
• Trial De Novo Default Judgment NY – No-Fault Insurance Requirements
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law