On May 15, 2024, the Second Department issued a decision in Wang v. IV – CVCF NEB REO, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op. 02722, holding that a short delay in serving an answer due to law office failure was sufficient excuse to avoid a default judgment, explaining:
A defendant who has failed to timely answer a complaint and who seeks leave to serve a late answer must provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action. A defendant opposing a facially adequate motion for leave to enter a default judgment based on the failure to appear or timely serve an answer, must make a similar showing. The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and in exercising that discretion, the court may accept law office failure as an excuse.
Here, the defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the relatively short delay in answering the amended complaint, based upon law office failure and miscommunication, as well as the absence of prejudice to the plaintiffs as a result of the short delay, and that the short delay was not willful. The defendants also demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action. Consequently, and in light of the strong public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants and granting the defendants’ cross-motion for leave to serve a late answer to the amended complaint and to compel the plaintiffs to accept their late answer.
(Internal citations omitted).