Haimov v Haimov
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Personal injury and premises liability, focused on civil procedure governing default judgments and late answers.
The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment on liability and granted the defendant's cross-motion to compel acceptance of his late answer.
The Appellate Division reversed the entire order, granted the plaintiff leave to enter a default judgment on the issue of liability, and denied the defendant's cross-motion to compel acceptance of the untimely answer.
The plaintiff made a facially adequate showing under CPLR 3215(a) [when a defendant has failed to appear, plead or proceed to trial the plaintiff may seek a default judgment] and CPLR 3215(f) [requires proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the cause of action, and proof of the default]. The defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the default because he submitted no affidavit of his own, his attorney lacked personal knowledge, the insurance adjuster's affidavit did not explain the lengthy earlier delay, and the defendant also failed to justify waiting more than three months after the plaintiff rejected the late answer before seeking relief.
Background
The plaintiff alleged that in September 2019 she was injured when she tripped and fell on a raised, cracked, and uneven walkway in front of property owned by the defendant. She commenced the action in August 2022. The defendant did not timely answer the complaint. On June 8, 2023, he served an answer, and the plaintiff rejected it the same day as untimely. On August 1, 2023, the plaintiff moved for leave to enter a default judgment on liability, submitting the complaint, an affidavit of merit, proof of service, the untimely answer, and the rejection of that answer. The defendant opposed and cross-moved to compel acceptance of the late answer, arguing that delay by his insurance carrier excused the default.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the plaintiff's default judgment motion and granted the defendant's cross-motion to compel the plaintiff to accept the late answer.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the plaintiff satisfied the requirements for a default judgment motion and that the defendant did not establish a reasonable excuse for failing to timely appear or answer. The court emphasized that the defendant provided no personal affidavit, counsel lacked personal knowledge of the insurance-related delay, the claims adjuster lacked personal knowledge of the substantial delay before April 21, 2023, and the defendant did not explain the additional delay in moving after the late answer had been rejected. Because no reasonable excuse was shown, the court found it unnecessary to address whether the defendant had a potentially meritorious defense.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that a defendant opposing a facially sufficient default judgment motion, or seeking to compel acceptance of a late answer, must show both a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious defense. Conclusory claims blaming an insurance carrier are insufficient where the supporting affiants lack personal knowledge or fail to explain all periods of delay. The ruling also confirms that unexplained delay after rejection of an untimely answer can independently defeat relief.
In New York, a late answer will not be excused without competent, firsthand proof explaining the default and all subsequent delay; absent that showing, a plaintiff who properly supports a CPLR 3215 default motion is entitled to judgment on liability.