Key Takeaway
Court ruling affirms discretion to consider late opposition papers in insurance cases when no prejudice exists, challenging rigid adherence to Civil King stipulations.
In New York’s no-fault insurance litigation, timing requirements can make or break a case. Courts routinely manage crowded dockets through adjournment stipulations, commonly known as “Civil King” stipulations, which establish deadlines for motion practice and discovery. However, these scheduling agreements aren’t absolute mandates that courts must follow without exception.
The tension between judicial efficiency and fairness often arises when parties miss deadlines but present substantive arguments that could affect the outcome. Courts must balance their case management responsibilities with ensuring that valid defenses aren’t lost due to technical delays, particularly when the opposing party suffers no real harm from the delay.
This judicial discretion becomes especially important in insurance coverage disputes, where complex factual and legal issues often emerge after initial deadlines pass. The question isn’t simply whether a deadline was missed, but whether justice is better served by strict adherence to scheduling or by examining the merits of late-filed papers.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
New Millennium Med. Imaging, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 51088(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2017)
“Contrary to plaintiff’s contention on appeal, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in considering defendant’s late opposition papers (see CPLR 2004), which raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the claims had been timely denied.”
This is a good decision, especially since the Second Department case law (see my post from last month) encourages courts to exercise their discretion to extend the time to serve and file papers in the absence of prejudice.
Key Takeaway
Courts retain discretion under CPLR 2004 to consider late-filed papers even when they violate Civil King stipulation deadlines, provided the papers raise substantial issues and no prejudice results to the opposing party. This decision reinforces that scheduling agreements serve case management, not rigid enforcement at the expense of substantive justice.
