On May 28, 2025, the Second Department issued a decision in Triple E. Constr., Inc. v. Green-Citi Mgt., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op. 03218, holding that conclusory allegations of law office failure are an insufficient basis for opposing a default judgment, explaining:
In order to successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a default judgment, a plaintiff who has failed to serve a timely reply to a defendant’s counterclaims must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate the existence of a potentially meritorious defense. Similarly, in seeking to vacate a default in serving a reply to counterclaims, a party must establish both a reasonable excuse for its delay in replying and a potentially meritorious defense to the counterclaims. The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the Supreme Court’s discretion. Where the claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default, the court may accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse. However, conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations of law office failure are not sufficient.
Here, the plaintiff’s conclusory and unsubstantiated assertions of law office failure failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its default in serving a reply to the defendants’ counterclaims. Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default, this Court need not consider whether the plaintiff established a potentially meritorious defense to the counterclaims.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).