Summary
This Appellate Division decision addresses a mortgage foreclosure action where the defendants appealed a trial court order compelling them to accept the plaintiff's late reply to their counterclaims. Applying CPLR 3012(d), the court affirmed the lower court's exercise of discretion, finding that the plaintiff's counsel provided a sufficient affidavit establishing law office failure as a reasonable excuse for the delay. The court noted there was no prejudice to the defendants and that public policy favors resolving cases on the merits.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion to compel acceptance of a late reply to the defendants' counterclaims
- Whether the appeal from the original order should be dismissed because it was superseded by the amended order
Holdings
- The appellate division affirmed the trial court's order granting the motion, finding that the plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious defense, and therefore the court may compel acceptance of the untimely pleading.
- The appeal from the original order was dismissed as the order had been superseded by the amended order.
Key quotations
“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 (CPLR 3012[d]).”
“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.”
Factual background
In a mortgage foreclosure action, the plaintiff sought to foreclose on the defendants' property. The defendants filed counterclaims alleging the plaintiff lacked standing. The plaintiff served a reply to the counterclaims after the deadline, and moved to compel the trial court to accept the late reply. The trial court granted the motion, finding a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious defense.
Procedural history
The plaintiff commenced a foreclosure action in January 2015. Defendants moved to dismiss; the motion was denied. Defendants filed an answer with affirmative defenses and counterclaims. The trial court initially rejected the plaintiff's late reply to the counterclaims, but on appeal affirmed that the answer was timely and ordered the plaintiff to accept service of the answer. The plaintiff later served a reply, which the trial court deemed untimely and granted a motion to compel acceptance of the late reply. The defendants appealed the amended order.