Key Takeaway
Court requires "detailed and credible" explanation for law office failure when seeking to vacate default judgment, as demonstrated in Premier Surgical Services case.
Default judgments can devastate defendants who fail to respond to lawsuits, but New York courts allow these judgments to be vacated under certain circumstances. One common ground for vacatur is “law office failure” - when an attorney’s mistake causes the default. However, as this case demonstrates, courts demand substantial proof that such failure actually occurred.
The standards for what constitutes adequate explanation have evolved significantly. While some defendants have successfully used law office failure arguments, courts increasingly scrutinize these claims to prevent abuse of the system.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Premier Surgical Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 50273(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2018)
” court, in its discretion, may accept a claim of law office failure as an excuse (see CPLR 2005; Star Indus., Inc. v Innovative Beverages, Inc., 55 AD3d at 904; Papandrea v Acevedo, 54 AD3d 915 ). The affirmation submitted by defendant’s attorney in support of the motion did not provide a “detailed and credible” explanation of the law office failure that had caused the default”
“We note that, at oral argument, defendant’s attorney asserted that plaintiff had improperly served the summons and complaint on defendant at its Long Island office. However, since this argument was not raised in defendant’s brief, we decline to address it on appeal”
This one hurts, because this was a basis to vacate the default insofar as it is jurisdictional.
Key Takeaway
Courts require specific, detailed explanations when attorneys claim law office failure caused a default judgment. Vague or conclusory statements won’t suffice. Additionally, arguments not properly preserved in legal briefs cannot be raised for the first time at oral argument, even when they involve potentially strong defenses like jurisdictional challenges.
