Key Takeaway
Court rejects law firm's reasonable excuse claim for default, finding pattern of neglect that constitutes serious lack of attention to case progress.
Court Rejects “Reasonable Excuse” Defense in Default Case
Courts have discretion when determining whether to excuse a party’s default in litigation, but that discretion has limits. A recent New York appellate decision demonstrates that while isolated instances of law office failure may constitute a reasonable excuse, courts will not tolerate patterns of neglect that show a fundamental lack of attention to a case’s progress.
The case involved Clinton Place Medical, P.C. versus Allstate Insurance Company, where the defendant sought to vacate a default judgment by claiming law office failure as a reasonable excuse. However, the court found that the evidence showed something more troubling than a simple administrative error — it revealed a pattern of neglect that warranted denial of the motion.
This decision highlights the importance of maintaining proper case management procedures, as courts generally take a dim view of repeated failures to meet procedural deadlines. The distinction between excusable law office failure and inexcusable patterns of neglect can be decisive in default proceedings.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Clinton Place Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 50400(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2017)
“The determination [*2]of what constitutes a reasonable excuse for a default generally lies within the sound discretion of the motion court (see Scarlett v McCarthy, 2 AD3d 623 ) and, in the exercise of its discretion, a court can accept a claim of law office failure as such an excuse (see CPLR 2005) if the facts submitted in support thereof are in evidentiary form and are sufficient to justify the default (see Dodge v Commander, 18 AD3d 943, 946 ; Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead v Jablonsky, 283 AD2d 553, 554 ). However, courts do not have to excuse a pattern of neglect which amounts to “a serious lack of concerned attention to the progress of action” (Lauro v Cronin, 184 AD2d 837, 839 ). In the case at bar, the record demonstrates a pattern of neglect which should not be excused (see Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead v Jablonsky, 283 AD2d at 554)”
The Good Hands people cannot be happy.
Key Takeaway
While courts have discretion to excuse defaults based on law office failure, they will not tolerate patterns of neglect that demonstrate a serious lack of attention to case management. Attorneys must provide evidentiary support for their excuses and show that defaults result from isolated incidents rather than systematic failures in their practice.
