Laches – remember that word?

The doctrine of laches—essentially a legal principle that bars claims when a plaintiff has unreasonably delayed pursuing their case to the detriment of the defendant—often surfaces in civil litigation as a defense strategy. However, New York’s procedural rules establish specific requirements for dismissing cases based on delay or failure to prosecute.

In civil procedure, timing matters significantly. Courts must balance allowing plaintiffs adequate time to pursue legitimate claims while protecting defendants from indefinite exposure to stale lawsuits. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) provides structured mechanisms for addressing delayed prosecution, particularly through CPLR 3216’s 90-day demand provisions. This procedural framework ensures fairness while maintaining judicial efficiency.

A recent Appellate Term decision reinforced these principles, clarifying when courts can—and cannot—dismiss cases based on laches or prosecutorial delay. The ruling emphasizes that procedural safeguards exist for good reason and cannot be circumvented through alternative legal theories.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Rockaway Med. & Diagnostic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 50238(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2020)

” court ‘ha no power whatsoever’ to dismiss an action for gross laches or failure to prosecute in the absence of a 90-day demand to serve and file a ” (Arroyo v Board of Educ. of City of NY, 110 AD3d 17, 20 , quoting Hodge v New York City Tr. Auth., 273 AD2d 42, 43 ; see also Chase v Scavuzzo, 87 NY2d 228 ; General Assur. Co. v Lachmenar, 45 Misc 3d 134, 2014 NY Slip Op 51722 ), and “the doctrine of laches does not provide an alternate basis to dismiss a complaint where there has been no service of a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 (b)” (Arroyo, 110 AD3d at 20; see also Montalvo v Mumpus Restorations, Inc., 110 AD3d 1045 ). As defendant does not claim to have served a demand pursuant to CPLR 3216, it was error for the Civil Court to grant the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss the complaint based on laches.

Key Takeaway

Courts cannot dismiss cases for laches or failure to prosecute without following CPLR 3216’s procedural requirements, specifically the 90-day demand provision. Defendants must properly serve this demand before seeking dismissal based on prosecutorial delay—laches alone cannot substitute for required procedural steps in New York civil practice.

Related Articles

• Combating Litigation Delay Tactics in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
• Single Motion Rule and Statute of Limitations: Long Island & NYC Legal Guide
• Understanding Collateral Estoppel in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
• Second and Third Chances in Motion Practice: When Courts Allow Corrections
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law