NY CPLR 2004: Extensions of Time — The New York Practitioner's Guide

Last reviewed: September 2026

CPLR 2004 gives a New York court discretion to extend a deadline before or after it expires. The first question is whether the governing law permits an extension. Then explain why more time is justified. Missing a deadline is the problem to explain, not the explanation.

Still current (September 2026): In Bank of America v D’Andrade, 251 AD3d 907 (2d Dept 2026), the court applied CPLR 2004 and 306-b but denied additional time to serve because neither good cause nor an interest-of-justice extension was established.

What CPLR § 2004 Says

CPLR 2004 covers deadlines set by statute, rule or order, subject to express legal restrictions. A court may impose appropriate terms and consider an application made after the deadline. That power is discretionary.

The statute’s opening exception matters. CPLR 201 bars a court from extending the statutory time to commence an action. CPLR 5514(c) limits extensions for taking an appeal to specified statutory routes. Neither deadline becomes extendable merely because counsel invokes CPLR 2004.

Why Calderone received an extension

In Calderone v Molloy College, 153 AD3d 491 (2d Dept 2017), the court rejected a stipulation extending the opposition schedule. Counsel e-filed opposition that night and sought an extension four days later. The NCAA did not oppose that request.

The Second Department granted the extension, citing the brief, unintentional delay, lack of prejudice and potentially meritorious opposition. Applying Tewari v Tsoutsouras, it considered the delay’s length and explanation, prejudice, default status and, where relevant, an affidavit of merit.

The plaintiff could not appeal the default order itself. The separate appeal from the denied extension succeeded. The court vacated the dismissal and sent the motion back for consideration with the opposition. It did not decide liability. The original Calderone note preserves the contemporary discussion.

Late opposition needs an explanation

Halas v Dick’s Sporting Goods involved a valid excuse, minimal delay and no demonstrated prejudice. In Elusma v Jackson, a vague, unsupported claim of law-office failure was inadequate. Even so, summary judgment was denied because the moving defendants had not met their initial burden.

New Millennium and Adotey, listed below, reached different results on their records. A triable issue in late opposition is not a substitute for explaining the delay, and a scheduling conflict does not automatically require an adjournment.

Check the separate deadline and remedy

A request for more time should identify the missed act and the relief needed now. Check these distinctions before choosing the motion:

• Post-trial timing comes from CPLR 4405: generally 15 days after the decision, verdict or jury discharge. Galarza v Heaney rejected a late CPLR 4404(a) motion without good cause for the delay. The 15-day period is not stated in CPLR 4404(a).
• For an existing default, Allstate v North Shore University Hospital granted relief under CPLR 5015(a)(1), 2004 and 3012(d) on a showing of reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious defense. By contrast, the insurer’s prolonged inaction in Viviane Etienne v Alea defeated its excuse.
• Buist v Bromley allowed correction of proof of service filed in the wrong office. That is different from assuming service itself was valid. In Wells Fargo v Frierson, failure to establish proper service of an order prevented the requested foreclosure relief, though the order was not void.
• Q-B Jewish Medical Rehabilitation allowed consideration of a slightly late motion to strike the trial-calendar placement in the circumstances presented. It did not abolish the filing deadline.
• CPLR 3215(c) concerns taking proceedings for entry of judgment within one year after default, not necessarily obtaining judgment within that year. Its sufficient-cause exception requires its own analysis. Acupuncture Works v New York City Transit dismissed the complaint where the plaintiff gave no explanation for delay and did not oppose dismissal.

The Robert C. note below concerns an order-to-show-cause deadline in a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding. The Third Department granted an extension on that record. It is not a general license to disregard service directions in other proceedings.

What should an extension request explain?

Identify the deadline, say what prevented compliance and account for the delay. Supply the proposed papers and address prejudice to the other side, including whether time to respond would help. If a default has been entered, identify the separate basis for reopening it. These are practical drafting points drawn from the cases, not a guarantee of relief.

Can an application be made after time expires? Yes, where the governing law allows it. Filing the request does not itself grant the extension.

Latest developments

• Bank of America v D’Andrade (July 22, 2026) denied more time for service under CPLR 2004 and 306-b. The court considered good cause and the separate interest-of-justice ground; neither was established.
• Lannon v Everest National Insurance Co. (April 15, 2026) upheld consideration of a surreply under CPLR 2214(c), while reiterating that unauthorized surreplies raising new arguments generally should not be considered. Permission depends on the record.

Cases in this topic

The directory contains 12 archive notes, published from 2009 through 2020. This 2024 overview is separate from that legacy count. Dates below are publication dates. Older commentary is preserved in the linked notes; use the current authorities above alongside it.

Late opposition and adjourned return dates

These cases turn on the explanation for the delay and the procedural record. Acceptance of late papers does not decide the underlying motion.

• Elusma: an inadequate excuse for late opposition — 2020-09-25
• New Millennium: opposition accepted after the briefing deadline — 2017-09-08
• Calderone: relief after a rejected briefing stipulation — 2017-08-07
• Adotey: lack of diligence and a denied extension — 2016-12-15
• Mallards Dairy: permission to submit a late expert affidavit — 2010-03-24
• Counsel Financial: a second adjournment request after missing the extended deadline — 2009-11-26

Trial dates and witness availability

Witness scheduling is a separate exercise of trial-court discretion. These decisions do not establish a fixed grace period for an unavailable expert.

• V.S. Medical: proof supporting a conditional adjournment — 2018-07-21
• Normandin: a short continuance to finish expert testimony — 2018-06-11
• Brooklyn Chiropractic: rescheduling for the medical witness — 2017-05-06
• Middle Village Chiropractic: diligence in arranging expert testimony — 2017-04-10

Court-directed service and submission of orders

The source of the deadline matters. An order-to-show-cause service direction and the rule for submitting a proposed order require separate analysis.

• Solomon: late submission of an order under 22 NYCRR 202.48 — 2018-11-07
• Robert C.: extending an order-to-show-cause service deadline — 2014-01-22

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Use the Legal Encyclopedia to move between deadline extensions and these related procedural questions:

• CPLR 2001: mistakes and filing irregularities
• Halas: late responding papers under CPLR 2214
• Buist: correcting where proof of service was filed
• Galarza: a late post-trial motion
• Allstate v North Shore: extending answer time while reopening a default
• Miller v Annucci: appeal filing and the limited CPLR 5520 cure
• City Chiropractic: substitution of counsel and relief from a trial default

Counsel-to-Counsel: Referrals and Co-Counsel

For a second look at a missed deadline or a motion record, contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. or call (516) 750-0595. Counsel handling an injury action can also review our personal injury practice.