On January 6, 2025, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Bank of India, N.Y. Branch v. Anaya Gems, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op. 30054(U), excusing the failure timely to move for default judgment because of law office failure, explaining:
As a preliminary matter, plaintiffs admit that this default motion is untimely as it was filed more than one year after the default.
The language of CPLR 3215(c) is not discretionary, and a claim for which a default judgment is not sought within the requisite one-year period will be deemed abandoned. Notwithstanding, a claim will not be deemed abandoned if the party seeking a default judgment provides sufficient cause as to why the complaint should not be dismissed. Sufficient cause requires a showing of an excuse for a plaintiff’s delay in seeking default and a meritorious claim.
Here, plaintiffs admit that law firm failure caused the delay. Plaintiffs wanted to give sufficient time for the Defaulting Defendants to answer to the Amended Complaint and inadvertently missed the one year deadline to file default judgment. Plaintiffs further explain that the one-year deadline was inadvertently missed while plaintiffs were opposing multiple motions to dismiss, moving for default judgment separately against the corporate defendant Anaya Gems and awaiting receipt of proof service of Ajay Gandhi.
The court finds that plaintiffs have demonstrated an excuse for their delay of several months in seeking default judgment. Finally, the record is devoid of any indication that late filing of the default motion causes the defaulting defendants any prejudice. In addition, given that plaintiffs move for default judgment against Ajay Gandhi and the court finds sufficient excuse for their delay, the order of October 28, 2024, is vacated, in part, to the extent the court dismissed Ajay Gandhi.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).