Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing procedural issues coverage, with 187 published articles analyzing procedural issues issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
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:
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
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
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Procedural Issues in New York Litigation
New York civil procedure governs every stage of litigation — from pleading requirements and service of process to motion practice, discovery deadlines, and trial procedures. The CPLR creates strict procedural rules that can make or break a case regardless of the underlying merits. These articles examine the procedural pitfalls, timing requirements, and strategic considerations that practitioners face in New York state courts, with a particular focus on no-fault insurance and personal injury practice.
187 published articles in Procedural Issues
Keep Reading
More Procedural Issues Analysis
How to Talk to a Judge in New York: What to Say, What to Avoid, and How to Present Yourself
Address the judge as 'Your Honor,' stand when you speak, wait to be recognized, and keep answers short and honest. A Long Island trial lawyer explains.
Feb 24, 2026
CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation
New York's CPLR 2106 permits affirmations in place of many sworn documents. See the 2024 and 2025 changes, exceptions, and historical case notes.
Feb 18, 2026
NY Insurance Subpoena Enforcement and Fair Hearing Rights
Expert analysis of NY insurance subpoena enforcement and fair hearing rights. Global Liberty case shows importance of due process. Call 516-750-0595.
Feb 3, 2019
It is not a Note of Issue
New York appellate court incorrectly applies CPLR 3212(a) note of issue requirement to Civil Court, where only a notice of trial is filed, creating statutory confusion.
Apr 8, 2014
5520 applies to reargument orders that were never appealed
Court applies CPLR 5520 to treat defective appeal as valid when appellant failed to appeal reargument order that superseded original order.
Mar 28, 2012
A conclusory statement is insufficient to raise an issue of fact that a signature was "faxed" or "electronic"
Ortho-Med rejected an unsupported signature objection without reaching the reply papers. Jason's original case account is preserved with current context.
Apr 11, 2010Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a procedural issues matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
