Untimely 4404(a) motion

Timing is everything in litigation, and nowhere is this more critical than when filing post-trial motions. The recent decision in Galarza v Heaney demonstrates how missing a crucial deadline can cost defendants millions of dollars. Under CPLR 4404(a), parties have only 15 days after a jury verdict to file motions to set aside the verdict - and courts take this deadline seriously.

This case serves as a stark reminder that procedural rules in New York No-Fault Insurance Law cases, like all civil litigation, must be followed precisely. When defendants failed to meet the statutory deadline without showing good cause for the delay, they lost their opportunity to challenge a substantial verdict. Understanding these procedural requirements is just as important as mastering the substantive legal issues, whether dealing with CPLR timing requirements or other critical deadlines.

Case Background

In Galarza v Heaney, a jury returned a verdict awarding the plaintiff $1.2 million in damages. Following the verdict, the defendants sought to set aside the jury’s determination by filing a motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a), which authorizes courts to set aside verdicts and order new trials or direct judgment in favor of a party. However, the defendants filed their motion more than 15 days after the jury rendered its verdict—exceeding the strict statutory deadline imposed by CPLR 4404(a).

The trial court initially granted the defendants’ motion, setting aside the substantial verdict. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the defendants’ motion was procedurally defective due to its untimeliness. The Second Department was thus tasked with determining whether the trial court had the authority to consider and grant an admittedly untimely post-trial motion, particularly when the moving party failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Galarza v Heaney, 2022 NY Slip Op 02395 (2d Dept. 2022)

Court reinstated a 1.2 million dollar verdict. You ask why?

“The Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) as untimely, as it was made more than 15 days after the jury verdict was rendered, without good cause shown for the delay”

The trick here is to ask the Court once the jury leaves to set forth a briefing schedule. If not possible, work overtime to get the motion out. If still not possible, make sure you appeal from the judgment and perfect off an appendix if need be. This was a disaster.

Legal Significance

The Second Department’s decision reinforces that CPLR 4404(a)‘s 15-day deadline is not merely a suggestion but a mandatory jurisdictional requirement. Unlike some procedural deadlines that courts may excuse based on equitable considerations, the time limit for post-trial motions serves a critical purpose: ensuring finality in litigation and preventing indefinite uncertainty about jury verdicts. The statute’s strict construction reflects the policy that parties must act promptly to challenge trial outcomes or accept the jury’s determination.

This ruling is consistent with New York’s broader jurisprudence emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines. Courts have repeatedly held that even meritorious substantive arguments cannot overcome procedural defaults when parties fail to comply with statutory time limits. The requirement that parties demonstrate “good cause” for late filings sets a high bar—general busy schedules, inadvertence, or miscalculation of deadlines typically do not suffice.

The case also illustrates the appellate courts’ willingness to correct trial court errors that undermine statutory requirements. Even though the trial court granted the defendants’ motion on the merits, the appellate court reversed because the trial court lacked authority to consider an untimely motion absent good cause. This demonstrates that appellate review serves not only to correct substantive errors but also to enforce procedural regularity.

Practical Implications for Trial Attorneys

For defense counsel, this case provides essential guidance on managing the aftermath of adverse verdicts. The moment a jury returns an unfavorable verdict, the 15-day clock begins ticking. Attorneys should immediately request that the court establish a briefing schedule for post-trial motions, as Jason notes in his analysis. This approach serves two purposes: it creates a record of the attorney’s diligence, and it may result in a court-ordered deadline that differs from the statutory default.

If obtaining a court-ordered briefing schedule proves impossible, attorneys must prioritize drafting and filing the motion within the statutory period, even if this requires working extended hours or temporarily setting aside other matters. The stakes are simply too high to miss this deadline—as the defendants in Galarza learned when they lost a $1.2 million case purely on procedural grounds.

Jason’s practical advice about perfecting an appeal “off an appendix if need be” reflects the reality that when post-trial motions are foreclosed by procedural defaults, direct appeals become the only remaining option. However, appeals face their own procedural hurdles and strategic limitations, making timely post-trial motions the far preferable course when challenging jury verdicts.

Key Takeaway

Post-trial motions under CPLR 4404(a) must be filed within 15 days of the jury verdict, and courts will not excuse late filings without good cause. Practitioners should immediately request a briefing schedule after verdict or work diligently to meet the deadline, as missing it can result in losing substantial cases on procedural grounds alone.

Related Articles

• No-Fault attorney
• NY CPLR 2004, Lessons in Legal Precision and Court Procedures
• CPLR 3212(a), Critical Timing Rules for Summary Judgment Motions in New York