Key Takeaway
NY court reinstates default judgment on technicality despite defendant's motion, highlighting critical procedural requirements for vacating defaults under CPLR 5015(a).
K.O. Med., P.C. v Avis Budget Group, 2017 NY Slip Op 50687(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2017)
(1) “On September 11, 2014, defendant served an answer, which plaintiff rejected as untimely. Upon plaintiff’s application, a default judgment awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $2,069.76 was entered on October 1, 2014. Defendant moved by order to show cause, returnable on October 31, 2014, to compel plaintiff to accept the answer.”
(2) “Defendant’s motion should have been denied, as defendant failed to move to vacate the duly entered default judgment and as the court did not treat defendant’s motion as one seeking that relief. In view of the foregoing, we do not consider defendant’s proffered excuse for its default.”
The lesson learned here is that when an answer is rejected as untimely, the motion should always seek the following relief: (1) Motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(__); (2) Motion to compel acceptance of answer, pursuant to CPLR 3012(d); (3) (sometimes) Motion to vacate any default based upon the Court’s interest of justice jurisdiction (Woodson v. Mendell Leasing).
This is a tough lesson here as the entry of a default occurred on three cases. What I do find disturbing is that assuming Defendant included a general prayer clause in the application, why didn’t the Court consider the CPLR 3012(d) application as a CPLR 5015(a)(1) application? Admittedly, the Court punished Defendant for a technicality that, at most, was just that.
Again, this Court continues to issue decisions that fly in the fact of the public policy that cases be heard on the merits absent intentional conduct. I am thinking Albany needs to revisit CPLR 2005 because the trend of allowing the entry of default from the Second Department (Term and Division) flies in the fact of sound public policy of encouraging cases to be resolved on the merits and encourages entries of default judgments.
Related Articles
- A default that is more than meets the eyes
- CPLR 5015(a)(1) in New York Personal Injury Cases: Setting Aside Default Judgments
- Why Law Office Failure Excuses Must Be Detailed to Open Default Judgments in NY
- Trial De Novo Default Judgment NY – No-Fault Insurance Requirements
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2017 post, there may have been amendments to CPLR provisions governing default judgment procedures and motion practice, including potential changes to CPLR 5015(a) excusable default standards or CPLR 3012(d) late answer acceptance procedures. Practitioners should verify current statutory language and recent appellate decisions interpreting motion requirements for vacating defaults and compelling acceptance of late answers.
