On December 3, 2025, the Second Department issued a decision in U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v. Roca, 2025 NY Slip Op. 06748, holding that waiting to see if a suit settles is an insufficient excuse for failing timely to file an answer, explaining:
Upon the application of a party, the court may 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. To extend the time to answer a complaint and to compel the plaintiff to accept late service of an answer pursuant to CPLR 3012(d), a defendant must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action.
Whether a proffered excuse is reasonable is a sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant factors, 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. The determination as to what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.
Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) for leave to serve a late answer, as the defendants did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to timely answer the complaint. The defendants’ misguided strategy of waiting until settlement negotiations had failed to either hire an attorney or attempt to interpose an answer did not constitute a reasonable excuse for their default.
Since the defendants failed to establish a reasonable excuse for their default, it is unnecessary to consider whether they demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the action.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) for leave to serve a late answer.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).