On December 19, 2024, Justice Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Homapour v. 3M Props., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op. 34518(U), excusing a 10-month delay in answering a cross-claim, explaining:
CPLR 3012(d) provides that 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. The First Department has observed, consistent with this language, that no showing of meritorious defense is required for relief under this provision.
In determining whether there is a reasonable excuse, the Court may consider all relevant factors, including the length of the delay, prejudice to the opposing party, willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits. Jacob asserts that the delay was the result of inadvertent law office failure because his counsel did not notice that Crossclaim-Plaintiffs added a demand for Jacob to answer the crossclaims. Jacob’s counsel explains that this oversight occurred because Crossclaim Plaintiffs’ Answer to Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint was nearly identical to their prior two Answers, which did not demand a response from Jacob.
While the length of delay was not insubstantial (approximately 10 months), Jacob’s default was not prejudicial. Fact discovery was completed when the third Answer was filed, and Crossclaim-Plaintiffs did not raise the issue of Jacob’s default until serving the Notice of Motion nearly 10 months after Jacob’s reply was due. Further, as discussed above, the cross-claims remained nearly identical to the ones previously asserted. Nor is Jacob’s opposition to the instant motion and participation in this nearly decade-old litigation consistent with a pattern of willful and dilatory behavior.
In light of the general preference for resolving disputes on the merits, the lack of prejudice to Crossclaim-Plaintiffs, and Jacob’s explanation for his failure to reply to the crossclaims, the Court concludes that Jacob has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for delay or default.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).