Absolutely horrible decision

GEICO’s wrong-index answer was rejected, but the appellate court’s stated reason for denying relief was the unexplained year before GEICO corrected it. Jason sharply disagreed with the result. His original reaction remains below, separated from what the court actually decided.

Historical note: New Age Medical (2020) rejected the excuse for the delay shown in that record. It did not announce that every index-number error is fatal. The default-judgment hub places it alongside other documented office failures.

Last reviewed: September 2026.

The answer and the year that followed

New Age Medical, P.C. v GEICO General Insurance Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 50316(U), was decided February 28, 2020 by the Appellate Term, Second Department. The provider sought assigned first-party no-fault benefits.

The summons and complaint were served on October 31, 2016. GEICO’s later motion included an affidavit showing service of an answer on November 30, 2016. The answer bore the wrong index number. The provider’s attorney rejected it by a letter dated December 9, 2016.

A default judgment was entered on March 13, 2017. In December 2017, GEICO moved to vacate it, contending that its first answer had been timely and that it had potentially meritorious defenses. The provider said the corrected answer was not served until December 13, 2017. The Civil Court denied the motion in November 2018, and the Appellate Term affirmed.

The published record therefore contains two questions: the treatment of the first answer and the failure to correct the identified problem for a year. The appellate court focused on the latter. It did not supply an explanation for that interval that GEICO’s motion had omitted.

Jason’s original March 2020 reaction

I am not the Gecko’s biggest defender for many reasons, but this takes the prize for what I have to call a bad decision and one that the Second Department might even look at if an application is made. I say might because they hate granting leave to no-fault cases, but this is so ridiculous that I hope they do.

The facts as I can tell (again New York refuses to join every other state and make all their Court’s e-file friendly) is that Geico’s answer was timely but the index number was wrong. Here is irony: before NY moved to file and serve in the lower courts 15 years ago, carriers received summonses without an index number.

Anyway, Plaintiff was looking to score an easy default and rejected the answer because the index number was wrong. Now, if the absence of an out of state certificate of conformity or a caption is a non-actionable defect, why should the wrong index or docket number be treated any differently? It is careless but not enough to put someone into default.

Well Geico waits a year to fix their mistake. The Civil Court and Appellate Term sanction the default and the ensuing clerk’s judgment. I am sorry but this is a crazy decision because I cannot even fathom how Geico, in the first instance, was in default.

This is contemporaneous criticism, including Jason’s view of the initial answer and his description of court filing practices at the time. It is not a statement that the Appellate Division later reviewed the case, or a current account of every New York court’s electronic-filing system. The appellate opinion records GEICO’s contention that its original answer was timely; the court’s dispositive reasoning addressed the later delay.

What the appellate court did—and did not—resolve

A party seeking excusable-default relief under CPLR 5015(a)(1) must show a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious defense. The court considered the extent of the delay as part of the discretionary excuse inquiry. GEICO had not explained why it waited a year after rejection before serving an answer with the correct number.

GEICO proposed lack of medical necessity and exhaustion of the policy limits as defenses. The court expressly did not need to decide whether those defenses were potentially meritorious after finding the excuse insufficient. This is not a reported holding that the treatment was medically necessary or that coverage remained unexhausted.

The decision also does not establish that a wrong index number defeats jurisdiction in every case. It affirmed denial of this motion on this record. Jason’s objection to the rejection and the court’s explanation for refusing vacatur are different parts of the historical account.

Correction of a defect is a distinct inquiry

CPLR 2001 permits correction of mistakes, omissions, defects or irregularities on appropriate terms, including specified filing-process errors. It also addresses disregarding an irregularity where no substantial right is prejudiced. That statute is relevant to understanding why a clerical mistake and a complete failure to act should not be treated as interchangeable.

New Age Medical does not discuss CPLR 2001 as a separate ground of its decision. Linking the statute here supplies context, not an unreported holding that GEICO won or lost a motion under that provision. Whether a particular paper can be corrected and whether a subsequent default should be excused require attention to the actual application and chronology.

CPLR 3012(d) separately permits an extension of time to appear or plead, or an order compelling acceptance of an untimely pleading, on the prescribed showing. New Age Medical’s motion sought, in effect, an extension and acceptance of the corrected answer as well as vacatur. The appellate court did not treat the request for correction as an explanation for the preceding year.

For a present file, the relevant documents include the original answer, its service proof, the rejection notice, the corrected answer and the default papers. Comparing those documents identifies both the asserted defect and the period requiring explanation. It does not guarantee that a defect will be disregarded or that a default will be reopened.

The rest of Jason’s original comment

Part of me understands and has fallen victim to what I think is a very tight leash on the vacatur of defaults in no-fault matters. The cases are small, the volume is horrific at times and the cases at best only involve redistribution of wealth. The bigger picture is where is the right balance between mandating procedural regularity and preventing unbridled gamesmanship. This case sadly got it wrong and in a really big way. I could never fathom rejecting papers because someone put the wrong index or docket on the papers. Well, score one for lunacy.

The disagreement is preserved as opinion rather than rewritten into a claim that the court adopted Jason’s position. No later reversal is asserted here.

Compare records, not labels

Urban Radiology accepted a claims handler’s explanation of a lost file and prompt action once the default was discovered. Renelique rejected a missing-system-entry account that did not explain the alleged receipt of process. Those cases show why “office mistake” does not describe enough facts to predict a result.

Shy v Shavin distinguished delay before default from delay assigning counsel afterward. New Age Medical makes that chronological discipline useful: a problem with the first answer does not by itself explain the full interval before correction.

The later Reinhold decision (2026) likewise rejected an unsupported account blaming prior counsel. It concerns a different record and does not establish that New Age Medical was overruled. The common point is the need to support the explanation for the particular default.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

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

• Renelique: an unexplained gap between service and a record search.
• Urban Radiology: a supported account of a lost claims file.
• Shy: distinguish the original default from later delay.
• Longevity: relief from late motion papers was only partial.
• MAPFRE v Callahan: counsel and client missed 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.