CPLR 5015(a)(1) in New York Personal Injury Cases: Setting Aside Default Judgments

Allstate lost its request to reopen the default in Renelique. Its computer system had no record of the lawsuit, but the motion did not explain what happened at the point where the process server said the papers were delivered. The decision is about that gap in the evidence, not a special rule that insurers can never dispute service.

Still current (September 2026): Reinhold (2026) again required a supported excuse for default; the default-judgment hub distinguishes that inquiry from jurisdictional relief and CPLR 317.

Last reviewed: September 2026.

What happened in Renelique

Pierre J. Renelique Physician, P.C. v Allstate Insurance Co., 64 Misc 3d 98, was decided July 19, 2019 by the Appellate Term, Second Department. Although this page’s original title refers to personal injury cases, Renelique itself was a medical provider’s action for assigned first-party no-fault benefits.

A default judgment had been entered on April 15, 2016 after Allstate failed to appear or answer. Allstate sought relief under CPLR 5015(a)(1), asserting an excusable default and a meritorious defense. It alternatively requested a traverse hearing, a hearing to resolve a dispute about service. The Civil Court granted the excusable-default branch. The provider appealed.

The appellate court reversed and denied that branch of Allstate’s motion. The distinction between the motion as originally made and the issues pursued on appeal matters: the opinion’s footnote says Allstate no longer sought a traverse hearing and did not argue for vacatur under CPLR 5015(a)(4). This was not an appellate decision granting a hearing to investigate service.

The missing link in Allstate’s nonreceipt proof

The process server’s affidavit was prima facie evidence of service under CPLR 311(a)(1) on a general agent authorized to receive process. Allstate’s claims representative said that received process would have been recorded in the company’s computer system under its business procedures, but no entry existed for this lawsuit.

That evidence left the alleged recipient unaccounted for. There was no affidavit from that person denying receipt, explaining what happened to the papers, or describing the person’s usual handling procedures if the particular delivery could not be recalled. There was also no explanation for the absence of an affidavit from that person.

A missing database entry and a denial of delivery are different assertions. The first describes the result of a record search; the second addresses the process server’s account. A document can fail to enter a system after delivery. On this record, Allstate’s submission did not supply specific facts rebutting the affidavit of service or establish a reasonable excuse for default.

The court identified possible kinds of evidence; it did not create a mandatory affidavit template for every insurer. Nor did it find that electronic records are categorically inadmissible. The weakness was the unexplained gap between the alleged handoff and the company’s search results. The recipient’s account would have addressed the handoff that the database search left unexplained.

Compare Urban Radiology, where the supervisor who handled the claims described a lost litigation file and prompt action after discovery of the default. That court accepted the excuse, but reopened only the claim for which a potentially meritorious defense was shown. Saying a file was lost is not automatically enough; who explains it, what happened, and the remaining proof all matter.

Excusable default, jurisdiction and nonreceipt are different routes

CPLR 5015(a)(1) addresses excusable default. The reasonable-excuse and potentially-meritorious-defense requirements discussed in Renelique come from the cases applying that provision. They should not be presented as a verbatim quotation of the statutory text.

Subdivision (a)(4) separately addresses a court’s lack of jurisdiction. If service was legally defective, that is a different ground from asking the court to excuse a failure to respond after valid service. Renelique’s footnote prevents its result from being stretched into a decision on a jurisdictional argument that Allstate did not pursue on appeal.

CPLR 317 is another distinct route. It concerns specified forms of service other than personal delivery to the defendant or an agent for service designated under CPLR 318, nonreceipt of notice in time to defend, and a meritorious defense. Its timing runs from knowledge of entry of judgment, subject to an outside limit. It is not a substitute label for every unsuccessful CPLR 5015 motion.

Renelique involved service on an authorized general agent, not service through the Department of Financial Services. Nothing in the opinion establishes a higher DFS-specific standard for insurers. For a particular application, the service affidavit, the method of service, the order sought to be vacated and the relief requested need to be read together.

The one-year limit is tied to a specified event

Under CPLR 5015(a)(1), the motion must be made within one year after service on the moving party of a copy of the judgment or order with written notice of entry. If the moving party entered the judgment or order, the year runs from entry. The statute does not say that the second branch runs from the moving party’s own service of notice of entry.

This distinction is worth checking against the actual documents. A judgment date, a notice-of-entry service date and the date a party learned about the lawsuit may be different. CPLR 317 uses a different timing framework: one year after knowledge of entry, and no more than five years after entry, together with its other conditions. A separate ground for relief must actually fit; it does not make delay safe.

The New Age Medical note shows another timing problem. The court focused on the unexplained year before a rejected answer was corrected. That delay analysis was not a ruling that every motion filed within a statutory period has a reasonable excuse.

What later law adds

In JPMorgan Chase Bank v Reinhold, 2026 NY Slip Op 02636, the defendants blamed prior counsel for both an unanswered complaint and an unopposed default motion. The Second Department found the account conclusory and unsupported. It did not reach the proposed defenses after finding no reasonable excuse.

Reinhold was a foreclosure case, not another insurer’s missing-file dispute. Its relevance is the requirement to explain the particular default with evidence. It supports reading Renelique as an evidentiary decision without turning every office mistake into an automatic loss.

A 2026 example where the explanation succeeded

Amondi v Promise Home Care Agency, 2026 NY Slip Op 03754, provides a useful counterexample to Renelique and Reinhold. The First Department upheld vacatur where counsel supplied a detailed, credible explanation of why the office had been unaware of a scheduled appearance. The account established inadvertent law-office failure.

Amondi involved a second application after the first had been denied without prejudice. That express permission for a fuller showing mattered. The court also found potentially meritorious amended claims and no demonstrated undue prejudice or surprise from the amendment. It did not reopen the default on the strength of an excuse alone.

The contrast helps identify what Renelique was missing. Courts can accept a supported account of an office failure, but the account must explain the relevant event. An affidavit describing why counsel missed an appearance in Amondi did work that a database search, unconnected to the alleged recipient of process in Renelique, did not.

Amondi does not guarantee a second chance after every unsuccessful motion. Its earlier order was expressly without prejudice. Before relying on it, check both the evidence offered and what the prior order actually allowed.

Frequently Asked Questions About CPLR 5015(a)(1)

Q: How long do I have to move to set aside a default judgment?

A: For excusable default under CPLR 5015(a)(1), the statute specifies one year after service of the judgment or order with written notice of entry on the moving party, or one year after entry if that party entered it. Other grounds have different requirements. The dates and the requested relief need individual review.

Q: Can I set aside a default judgment if I was properly served but just forgot to respond?

A: Proper service does not prevent an excusable-default application, but forgetfulness alone does not explain the events or establish potential merit. Renelique rejected the record offered there; Urban Radiology accepted a particular lost-file explanation. Neither promises relief for an administrative mistake.

Q: What constitutes a “meritorious defense” in a personal injury case?

A: The application must show a potentially meritorious defense to the actual claim, supported by an appropriate evidentiary account. Renelique was a no-fault reimbursement action rather than an injury-damages case. Its result does not decide comparative negligence, injury severity or the ultimate merits of an individual tort defense.

Q: If I never received the lawsuit papers, what kind of proof do I need?

A: Address the specific account of service and identify the source of your knowledge. In Renelique, the missing computer entry did not explain the alleged recipient’s conduct, and no reason was given for that person’s missing affidavit. The necessary proof depends on the service method and the ground for relief.

Q: Can an insurance company set aside a default judgment for improper service?

A: An insurer can raise a supported jurisdictional challenge, but Renelique did not decide an appellate CPLR 5015(a)(4) application. It concerned service on an authorized general agent and an unsuccessful excusable-default motion. It did not announce a special higher standard for service through DFS.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Start with the default-judgment and vacatur hub. Follow the closest procedural comparisons:

• Urban Radiology: a supported lost-file excuse and partial vacatur.
• Shy: hearsay about forwarding a lawsuit to the insurer.
• New Age Medical: an unexplained year before correcting an answer.
• Longevity: an accepted excuse did not reopen every claim.
• MAPFRE v Callahan: separate absences at a hearing.

For review of a particular default or litigation deadline, contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum. Have the summons, service proof, relevant orders, notice of entry and motion papers available. This case note does not determine the outcome of a new application.