Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading in New York

What Is a Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading?

Background

A defendant who has failed to timely appear in an action may move to compel the plaintiff’s acceptance of an untimely answer. (New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v. Auto One Ins. Co., 28 A.D.3d 441 [2006]; Maspeth Fed Sav. and Loan Assn. v. McGown, 77 A.D.3d 889, 890 [2nd Dept. 2010].)

How to Structure the Motion

The court is authorized to “extend the time to appear or plead, or compel the acceptance of a pleading untimely served, upon such terms as may be just and upon a showing of reasonable excuse for delay or default.” (Civ. Prac. Law & Rules, § 3012(d).) Such an extension may be granted “upon the application of a party.” (EMC Mortg. Corp v. Gass, 114 A.D.3d 1074, 1075 [3rd Dept. 2014].)

A party seeking to compel the acceptance of an untimely answer must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense. (Cummings v. Rosoff, 101 A.D.3d 713, 714 [2nd Dept. 2012]; HSBC Bank USA, Nat. Ass’n v. Lafazan, 115 A.D.3d 647, 648 [2nd Dept. 2014].) A defendant demonstrates a potentially meritorious defense by demonstrating there was factual support for his or her defenses. (Accetta v. Simmons, 108 A.D.3d 1096 [4th Dept. 2013]; Fried v. Jacob Holding, Inc., 110 A.D.3d 56, 57 [2nd Dept. 2013].)

The Court’s Decision

The court has broad discretion in granting applications for extensions of time to answer. (Aloizos v. Trinity Realty Corp., 171 A.D.2d 426, 427 [1st Dept. 1991]; Mufalli v. Ford Motor Co., 105 A.D.2d 642, 643 [1st Dept. 1984].) However, a movant is required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay and a meritorious defense to the action. (Wassertheil v. Elburg, LLC, 94 A.D.3d 753 [2nd Dept. 2012].)

The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the court. (Jueseinoski v. Board of Education of City of New York, 15 A.D.3d 353 [2nd Dept. 2005].) Whether an excuse is “reasonable” is to be made by the court based on all relevant facts, including the extent of the delay, whether there has been prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits.” (Rickert v. Chestara, 56 A.D.3d 941, 942 [3rd Dept. 2008].)

Documents

Case Name 653172/2018
Case Filed

Jun 25, 2018

County

New York County, NY

Filed Date

Oct 30, 2020

Judge Hon. RAMOS, CHARLES E. Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for RAMOS, CHARLES E.
County

New York County, NY

Filed Date

Sep 24, 2020

Judge Hon. Joel M Cohen Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Joel M Cohen
County

Kings County, NY

Filed Date

Jul 01, 2020

Type

Commercial Division

County

Kings County, NY

Filed Date

Jul 01, 2020

Type

Commercial Division

County

Kings County, NY

Filed Date

Jul 01, 2020

Type

Commercial Division

County

Erie County, NY

Filed Date

Oct 28, 2019

Type

Commercial - Contract

County

Kings County, NY

Filed Date

Aug 28, 2019

Type

Torts - Other (Premises)

Judge Hon. Katherine Levine Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Katherine Levine

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope