Key Takeaway
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum analyzes a questionable court decision regarding notice requirements for default judgment motions when defendants have already defaulted.
Understanding Notice Requirements in Default Judgment Proceedings
Default judgments occur when a defendant fails to respond to a lawsuit within the required timeframe. However, questions sometimes arise about procedural requirements during the default process, particularly regarding notice obligations. A recent appellate decision raises important questions about whether courts are applying the correct legal standards when reviewing default judgment proceedings.
The case involves a dispute over whether proper notice was given for a motion seeking default judgment, but the underlying legal question is more fundamental: should defendants who have already defaulted be entitled to notice of applications for default judgment at all?
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Freedom Chiropractic, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 50686(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2020)
“As plaintiff acknowledges on appeal, defendant argued that defendant “did not receive at least 13 days’ notice , the minimum required for motions served by regular mail (see CPLR 2103 ; 2214 ). ”
My question here is since a party in default (unless they previously appeared) is not legally entitled to a notice of an application for a default (whether made to the court or clerk), is this decision correct?
Guarantee the argument is not preserved and the Court did nit have to reach it.
Key Takeaway
This decision highlights a potential misapplication of notice requirements in default proceedings. When a defendant has failed to appear or respond to a lawsuit, they generally forfeit their right to notice of subsequent default judgment applications, making the court’s focus on notice timing legally questionable in this context.
Understanding these procedural nuances is crucial for attorneys handling default judgment cases and can significantly impact case outcomes and appeal strategies.
