Key Takeaway
Court accepts calendar service failure as reasonable excuse for default, allowing plaintiff to vacate summary judgment when attorney never received briefing schedule notification.
When Calendar Services Fail: A Successful Default Vacatur
In litigation, missing deadlines can have devastating consequences, often resulting in default judgments that can be difficult to overturn. However, courts recognize that sometimes failures occur due to circumstances beyond an attorney’s control. The Second Department’s decision in Singh v Sukhu demonstrates how communication breakdowns with calendar services can provide grounds for vacating a default judgment.
This case highlights the critical role that calendar services play in litigation management and what happens when these systems fail. When an attorney’s calendar service failed to transmit crucial scheduling information, the court found this constituted a reasonable excuse for the resulting default. This decision provides important guidance for practitioners who rely on third-party services to manage court deadlines and reinforces that reasonable excuses for defaults can include administrative failures beyond the attorney’s direct control.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Singh v Sukhu, 2020 NY Slip Op 01105 (2d Dept. 2020)
“The Central Motion Part of the Supreme Court set a briefing schedule requiring that the plaintiff’s opposition papers be served by August 19, 2016. The plaintiff, unaware of the briefing schedule, served her opposition papers seven business days before the September 2, 2016, return date in accordance with CPLR 2214(b). On the return date, the plaintiff’s opposition was rejected as untimely. In an order entered September 20, 2016, the Supreme Court granted the DNJC defendants’ motion for summary judgment, noting that the plaintiff did not oppose the motion…
…
Here, the plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable excuse for her default. The affirmation of her attorney explained that the plaintiff’s default was reasonable and inadvertent due to the fact that the attorney’s “calender service” never communicated the briefing schedule to counsel’s office and that counsel first learned of the August 19, 2016, date when it attempted to file the opposition papers only six days later (see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Faragalla, 174 AD3d 677).”
Key Takeaway
This decision underscores the importance of reliable case management systems while offering hope for attorneys facing defaults due to administrative failures. Courts will accept calendar service breakdowns as reasonable excuses when attorneys can demonstrate they were unaware of modified deadlines through no fault of their own, emphasizing the need for backup systems to track critical court deadlines.
