Ponce v Ortiz
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Personal injury and civil procedure dispute over a default judgment and whether a defendant's late answer should be accepted.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment against Roland Ortiz and granted Ortiz's cross-motion under CPLR 2004 [extension of time] and CPLR 3012(d) [permits the court to extend time to appear or plead and compel acceptance of a late pleading upon a proper showing] to compel acceptance of his late answer.
The Appellate Division reversed the order insofar as appealed from, granted the plaintiff leave to enter a default judgment against Ortiz, and denied Ortiz's cross-motion to compel acceptance of the late answer.
Although the plaintiff made a facially adequate showing for default judgment under CPLR 3215(f) [requires proof of service, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the default], Ortiz failed to provide a reasonable excuse for not timely appearing or answering and also failed to explain his more than one-year delay in seeking relief after the plaintiff rejected the answer as untimely.
Background
The plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he was struck while lawfully crossing the street by a motor vehicle owned by Roland Ortiz. Service on Ortiz was completed on June 17, 2022. Ortiz served an answer on August 31, 2022, which the plaintiff rejected the next day as untimely. On January 24, 2023, the plaintiff moved for leave to enter a default judgment. On October 11, 2023, Ortiz opposed that motion and cross-moved to compel the plaintiff to accept the late answer.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment and granted Ortiz's cross-motion for an extension of time and acceptance of his late answer.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the plaintiff satisfied the requirements for a default judgment motion and that Ortiz did not show a reasonable excuse for his default or for the lengthy delay in moving to compel acceptance of the late answer. Because no reasonable excuse was established, the court did not need to consider whether Ortiz had a potentially meritorious defense. The appellate court therefore found that the lower court improvidently exercised its discretion.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that a defendant opposing a facially sufficient default judgment motion, or seeking acceptance of a late answer, must show both a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious defense. If the defendant cannot establish a reasonable excuse, relief under CPLR 2004 and CPLR 3012(d) will be denied, and the court need not examine the merits of the proposed defense.
A late answer will not be excused simply because it was eventually served; the defendant must promptly seek relief and provide a concrete, reasonable excuse for both the initial default and any subsequent delay.