Did the defaulting party show a reasonable excuse (or lack of notice) and a potentially meritorious defense or claim?

Short answer: Settled statewide by the Court of Appeals. The rule is the Court of Appeals' (Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138 [1986], not in the database but cited by 86 decisions in it): CPLR 5015 (a) (1) requires a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense; CPLR 317 requires no excuse, only that a defendant not served by personal delivery did not receive actual notice in time to defend and has a meritorious defense; service through the Secretary of State is not personal delivery. The Appellate Division, Second Department applies the same to insurers served through the Superintendent of Insurance (Insurance Law § 1212) (NY & Presbyt. v Allstate 2006; Montefiore v Auto One 2008). The decisions differ only in application: what affidavit rebuts proof of service, how detailed law office failure must be, and what counts as a meritorious no-fault defense (a timely, non-defective denial or a non-precludable coverage defense; for a provider in a de novo action, its arbitration award). One point differs between departments: under CPLR 3012 (d), before a default judgment, the First Department does not require a meritorious defense (Interboro v Perez 2013), while the Second Department does (State Farm v Austin Diagnostic 2017; App Term 2d Rockaway Blvd. 2003, Trinity 2025). That point is narrow and does not change the 5015/317 test.

Scope. Deciding this question means ruling on whether a party to a no-fault action or proceeding (insurer, provider, assignor or MVAIC) is relieved of its own default: a motion to vacate a judgment or order entered on its failure to appear, answer, oppose a motion or appear at a trial, calendar call or conference (CPLR 5015 [a] [1], also an intrinsic-fraud motion under CPLR 5015 [a] [3] where the court requires an excuse), a motion under CPLR 317 by a party not served by personal delivery (no actual notice in time to defend plus a meritorious defense; service through the Superintendent/DFS under Insurance Law § 1212 or the Secretary of State is not personal delivery), or a motion or cross motion to compel acceptance of a late answer or extend the time to answer (CPLR 3012 [d], 2004) including opposition to a default-judgment motion on that basis. It covers both elements: the excuse (law office failure under CPLR 2005, clerical error, nonreceipt of process and the affidavit needed to rebut the process server's affidavit) and the potentially meritorious defense or cause of action (for an insurer, usually a timely denial or a non-precludable coverage defense; for a provider in an insurer's de novo action, its arbitration award). Categories record which element the court found shown or lacking.

Based on 185 decisions in our database, the most recent decided September 18, 2026.

Leading authorities · Governing regulations · Authority map · Decisions by court · Plain-text version (Markdown)

Leading authorities

New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 04260) Appellate Division, Second Department, 2006CPLR 317: insurer served via Superintendent needs no excuseAn insurer served by delivery to the Deputy Secretary of Insurance under Insurance Law § 1212 was not served by personal delivery, so its CPLR 5015 (a) (1) motion could be treated under CPLR 317, which requires no reasonable excuse; the insurer showed it did not receive actual notice in time to defend and had meritorious defenses, and vacatur was affirmed.
A defendant served with a summons other than by personal delivery or to an agent designated under CPLR 318 may obtain relief pursuant to CPLR 317 upon a showing that it did not receive notice of the summons in time to defend, and has a meritorious defense
Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 10596) Appellate Division, Second Department, 2008Mere denial of receipt neither excuses default nor proves no noticeWhere the provider proved service on the Superintendent of Insurance and the insurer did not claim its address on file was wrong, the insurer's bare denial of receipt was no reasonable excuse under CPLR 5015 (a) (1) and did not show lack of actual notice under CPLR 317; denial of vacatur affirmed.
The defendant did not contend that the address on file with the Superintendent of Insurance was incorrect, and the mere denial of receipt of the summons and complaint was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service created by the affidavit of service
Hospital for Joint Diseases v ELRAC, Inc. (2004 NY Slip Op 07140) Appellate Division, Second Department, 2004Law office failure excuses default only with detailed explanationThe insurer's default in answering was excused as law office failure because the attorney responsible gave a detailed affirmation explaining his oversights, the default was not willful, it was promptly cured and caused no prejudice; a claims representative's affidavit based on business records showed a meritorious defense.
The defendant established a reasonable excuse for the default attributable to law office failure by submitting an affirmation from the offending attorney with a detailed explanation of his oversights. There was nothing willful or deliberate about the default
Westchester Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 00377) Appellate Division, Second Department, 2011Clerical delay forwarding summons is a reasonable excuseAn employee's affidavit attesting to a clerical oversight in forwarding the summons and complaint to counsel was a reasonable excuse for a short default; with a potentially meritorious defense, no willfulness and no prejudice, denying vacatur was an improvident exercise of discretion and the late answer was deemed timely.
The defendant established through an employee’s affidavit, which attested to a clerical oversight regarding the delay in forwarding the summons and complaint to its attorney, a reasonable excuse for the short period of time following service of the complaint in which it failed either to appear or answer the complaint
Interboro Ins. Co. v Perez (2013 NY Slip Op 08347) Appellate Division, First Department, 2013First Department: CPLR 3012 (d) needs no meritorious defenseIn an insurer's EUO no-show declaratory judgment action, the providers' minimal delay in answering, caused by a computer inputting error in their attorney's office, was excused under CPLR 3012 (d); a meritorious defense is not required for that relief, though the providers showed one (no proof the EUO letters were mailed).
Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, a meritorious defense is not required to obtain relief under CPLR 3012 (d)
Pierre J. Renelique Physician, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 29225) Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019No-record affidavit does not rebut service on insurer's agentAgainst a process server's affidavit of service on the insurer's general agent, a claim representative's affidavit that the insurer had no record of receiving process was not a reasonable excuse; the insurer needed an affidavit from the person served (or an explanation of its absence), so vacatur under CPLR 5015 (a) (1) was reversed.
absent from defendant’s moving papers was any affidavit by the person who had allegedly been served denying service or, for example, setting forth whether that person recalled having received the service in issue and, if he did, what had happened to those papers
Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co. 67 NY2d 138Source of both tests: CPLR 5015 (a) (1) requires a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense; CPLR 317 requires no excuse; service on the Secretary of State is not personal delivery, and a 5015 motion may be treated as one under 317. Cited by 86 decisions in the database.Not in our database.
Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead v Jablonsky 283 AD2d 553Law office failure must be supported by facts in evidentiary form sufficient to justify the default (13 decisions).Not in our database.
Kaperonis v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 254 AD2d 334Service on an insurer through the Superintendent of Insurance (Insurance Law § 1212); cited with the 317 cases (5 decisions).Not in our database.
Hayden v Southern Wine & Spirits of Upstate N.Y., Inc. 126 AD3d 673Process server's affidavit is prima facie evidence of service on an agent authorized to accept service; cited by App Term 2d when rejecting nonreceipt excuses (8 decisions).Not in our database.
Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y. 15 AD3d 353Second Department: CPLR 3012 (d) relief and vacatur both require a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense (9 decisions).Not in our database.
Smoke v Windermere Owners, LLC 109 AD3d 742First Department: no meritorious defense required under CPLR 3012 (d); followed in Interboro v Perez.Not in our database.

Governing regulations

Governed by the CPLR (5015 (a) (1), 317, 2005, 3012 (d)) and the case law, not by Part 65. Service on an insurer through the Superintendent under Insurance Law § 1212 is not personal delivery, so CPLR 317 is available to it.

Chosen by us from the regulation text and the decisions on this question that cite it. Each link opens our copy of the regulation, which is unofficial; the official text is in the NYCRR.

Authority map

Each circle is a decision on this question, placed by court and date; its colour is the position it took. Lines are citations between them. Select a circle (or find a decision by name) to see its links and summary. The same decisions are listed by court below the map.

Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedRelief denied because no reasonable excuse (or, under CPLR 317, no lack of actual notice) was shown; meritorious defense accepted or not reachedRelief denied because no potentially meritorious defense or cause of action was shown; excuse accepted or not reachedRelief denied because the party showed neither a reasonable excuse nor a potentially meritorious defense or claimExcuse or defense cannot be decided on this record: hearing ordered or matter remittedRing: rules on the question, but another ground decided the caseContrasted, distinguished or limitedDeclined to follow, questioned, overruled or reversedCited Show ordinary citations

Layout

The map loads when you scroll to it.

How the rule was applied, by court

Court	Default excused	No reasonable excuse	No meritorious defense	Neither shown	Hearing or remittal	Total
Appellate Division, First Department	1	2	1	0	0	4
Appellate Division, Second Department	21	6	3	4	0	34
Appellate Division, Third Department	3	0	0	0	0	3
Appellate Term, First Department	1	1	0	0	0	2
Appellate Term, Second Department	41	56	13	16	1	127
Trial courts in the First Department	3	0	1	2	0	6
Trial courts in the Second Department	5	2	1	1	0	9

Decisions (185)

Every decision in our database that rules on this question: highest court first, then by department, newest first. 174 turn on it; the others rule on it alongside a different main ground (marked "also decides"). The one-sentence summaries describe what each court said on this question.

Appellate Division, First Department (4 decisions)

Hereford Ins. Co. v Interdependent Acupuncture PLLC (2025 NY Slip Op 00021) Appellate Division, First Department, January 2, 2025Relief denied because no reasonable excuse (or, under CPLR 317, no lack of actual notice) was shown; meritorious defense accepted or not reachedUpheld denial of the claimants' motion to vacate default declaratory judgments because, having conceded service, their confusion over a separate personal injury action was no reasonable excuse, so the meritorious defense need not be considered.
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Baucage (2017 NY Slip Op 00015) Appellate Division, First Department, January 3, 2017Relief denied because no reasonable excuse (or, under CPLR 317, no lack of actual notice) was shown; meritorious defense accepted or not reachedUpheld a default declaratory judgment against the provider because it did not deny receiving the properly served summons and complaint and gave no reasonable excuse for failing to answer timely.
Interboro Ins. Co. v Perez (2013 NY Slip Op 08347) Leading case Appellate Division, First Department, December 12, 2013Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedUpheld compelling acceptance of the providers' late answers because counsel's affirmation explained the minimal delay as an office computer inputting error, with prompt cure, no willfulness and no prejudice; a meritorious defense was unnecessary but shown.
Victoria Ins. Co. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 04859) Appellate Division, First Department, June 10, 2004Relief denied because no potentially meritorious defense or cause of action was shown; excuse accepted or not reachedHeld the insurer's default in answering the petition not vacated because it showed no merit: no arbitrator misconduct in refusing an adjournment, and no affidavit from its insured rebutting DMV records on the truck's weight.

Appellate Division, Second Department (34 decisions)

American Tr. Ins. Co. v Bruno Med. Supply, Inc. (2026 NY Slip Op 01332) Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026Relief denied because no reasonable excuse (or, under CPLR 317, no lack of actual notice) was shown; meritorious defense accepted or not reachedDenied the provider's motion to vacate the default judgment in the insurer's de novo action and compel acceptance of a late answer because its law office failure claims were contradictory and conclusory; the meritorious defense was not reached.
Lancer Ins. Co. v Fishkin (2022 NY Slip Op 06921) Appellate Division, Second Department, December 7, 2022Relief denied because no reasonable excuse (or, under CPLR 317, no lack of actual notice) was shown; meritorious defense accepted or not reachedHeld the defaulting provider, having failed to oppose the insurer's default-judgment motion, showed no reasonable excuse, so denying the motion on policy grounds because the provider held an arbitration award was an improvident exercise of discretion.
Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Shahid Mian, M.D., P.C. (2019 NY Slip Op 04144) Appellate Division, Second Department, May 29, 2019Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedUpheld vacatur of the provider's default in answering the insurer's de novo action because it showed a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious defense through the arbitration and master arbitration awards in its favor.
Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v Excel Prods., Inc. (2019 NY Slip Op 02569) Appellate Division, Second Department, April 3, 2019Relief denied because no reasonable excuse (or, under CPLR 317, no lack of actual notice) was shown; meritorious defense accepted or not reachedHeld the provider's principal's conclusory denial of receipt, with its address matching the Secretary of State's records, failed to show lack of actual notice under CPLR 317 or a reasonable excuse, so the meritorious defense was not reached.
Allstate Ins. Co. v North Shore Univ. Hosp. (2018 NY Slip Op 05268) Appellate Division, Second Department, July 18, 2018Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedHeld the provider's default in answering the insurer's de novo action excused, as it showed a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious defense, with no prejudice, no willfulness and a policy favoring the merits.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Austin Diagnostic Med., P.C. (2017 NY Slip Op 05992) Appellate Division, Second Department, August 2, 2017Relief denied because no potentially meritorious defense or cause of action was shown; excuse accepted or not reachedUpheld denial of the provider's motion to extend its time to answer or compel acceptance of its late answer because an answer verified only by counsel and an attorney's affirmation without personal knowledge showed no potentially meritorious defense.
Liberty County Mut. v Avenue I Med., P.C. (2015 NY Slip Op 04815) Appellate Division, Second Department, June 10, 2015Relief denied because the party showed neither a reasonable excuse nor a potentially meritorious defense or claimHeld the providers' misreading of a clear stipulation to answer or move was no reasonable excuse, and in any event they showed no potentially meritorious defense, so extending their time to answer was error and default judgment was granted.
New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 06188) Appellate Division, Second Department, September 17, 2014Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedUpheld vacatur of the default judgment and leave to appear late because an employee's affidavit showed a clerical oversight in forwarding the summons to counsel, the insurer had a potentially meritorious defense, and the default was not willful or prejudicial.

Show all 34 decisions

NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 06288) Appellate Division, Second Department, September 26, 2012Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedUpheld vacatur of the clerk's default judgment and compelled acceptance of the insurer's answer given the minimal delay, no prejudice or willfulness, a potentially meritorious defense, and the policy favoring resolution on the merits.
Westchester Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 00377) Leading case Appellate Division, Second Department, January 18, 2011Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedHeld an employee's affidavit describing a clerical oversight in forwarding the summons and complaint to counsel was a reasonable excuse for the brief default, which, with a potentially meritorious defense, no willfulness and no prejudice, required vacatur and acceptance of the late answer.
Westchester Med. Ctr. v Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 00138) Appellate Division, Second Department, January 5, 2010Relief denied because the party showed neither a reasonable excuse nor a potentially meritorious defense or claimReversed vacatur because the insurer's out-of-state claims examiner, lacking knowledge of the receiving office's procedures, showed neither a clerical-error excuse for nonreceipt nor a meritorious defense.
St. Barnabas Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 07824) Appellate Division, Second Department, October 27, 2009Relief denied because no potentially meritorious defense or cause of action was shown; excuse accepted or not reachedHeld the insurer showed no meritorious defense to vacate the default judgment because its timely denial misstated the claim amount and gave an invalid reason, making it fatally defective.
St. Vincent's Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v Hanover Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 00674) Appellate Division, Second Department, February 3, 2009Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedHeld the court properly exercised its discretion in granting the insurer's cross motion to vacate the judgment entered on its default in appearing or answering.
Westchester Med. Ctr. v Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 00528) Appellate Division, Second Department, January 27, 2009Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedHeld vacatur properly granted because the insurer's employee reasonably believed the action was discontinued after telling plaintiff's counsel benefits were exhausted, the short delay caused no prejudice, and partial exhaustion of the policy limits was a potentially meritorious defense.
Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 10596) Leading case Appellate Division, Second Department, December 30, 2008Relief denied because no reasonable excuse (or, under CPLR 317, no lack of actual notice) was shown; meritorious defense accepted or not reachedHeld the insurer's mere denial of receipt of process served on the Superintendent was no reasonable excuse under CPLR 5015(a)(1) and did not show lack of actual notice under CPLR 317, so vacatur was denied.
Hospital for Joint Diseases v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 07619) Appellate Division, Second Department, October 7, 2008Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedAffirmed vacatur under CPLR 317 because the insurer, served via the Superintendent, showed through its claims manager's office-practice affidavit that it did not receive the summons until after judgment, and showed a potentially meritorious defense.
St. Vincent's Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 06227) Appellate Division, Second Department, July 24, 2007Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedHeld that the insurer showed a reasonable excuse for failing to timely appear and answer and a potentially meritorious defense, so denying vacatur of the clerk's judgment and leave to serve a late answer was an improvident exercise of discretion.
Westchester Med. Ctr. v AIU Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 04285) Appellate Division, Second Department, May 15, 2007Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedHeld that vacatur of the default judgment entered on the insurer's failure to answer was a provident exercise of discretion under CPLR 317.
Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 01531) Appellate Division, Second Department, February 20, 2007Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedUpheld vacatur of the judgment entered on the insurers' default in opposing summary judgment because an isolated, non-willful calendar-department scheduling error was excusable law office failure and their evidence made a prima facie potentially meritorious defense.
Sound Shore Med. Ctr. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 05939) Appellate Division, Second Department, July 25, 2006Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedUpheld vacating the clerk's default judgment because an employee's affidavit showed a non-willful clerical error in forwarding the summons to counsel, without prejudice to the provider, and the insurer made a prima facie showing of a meritorious defense.
New York Univ. Hosp. Rusk Inst. v Illinois Natl. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 05601) Appellate Division, Second Department, July 11, 2006Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedHeld denial of vacatur an improvident exercise of discretion because the insurers showed a reasonable excuse and potentially meritorious defenses of unanswered verification demands and exhaustion, with brief delay, no willfulness and no prejudice.
New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 04260) Leading case Appellate Division, Second Department, May 30, 2006Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedAffirmed vacatur and extension of time to answer under CPLR 317 because the insurer served via the Superintendent showed it did not receive actual notice in time to defend and had meritorious defenses, needing no excuse.
New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 02509) Appellate Division, Second Department, April 4, 2006Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedUpheld vacatur of the default judgment and extension of time to answer under CPLR 3012 (d) because the insurer showed a reasonable excuse for its brief delay and potentially meritorious defenses, without willfulness or prejudice.
New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v American Home Assur. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 02510) Appellate Division, Second Department, April 4, 2006Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedUpheld vacating the default judgment because the misspelled name of the insured in the pleadings delayed the insurer's search for the policy, it showed a lack-of-coverage defense, and the delay was brief, not willful and not prejudicial.
New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 02344) Appellate Division, Second Department, March 28, 2006Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedUpheld vacatur of the judgment entered on the insurer's failure to appear or answer, and leave to serve a late answer, because the insurer showed both a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense.
Hospital for Joint Diseases v Dollar Rent A Car (2006 NY Slip Op 00141) Appellate Division, Second Department, January 10, 2006Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedUpheld vacating the summary judgment order entered on the insurer's default in opposing the motion because the insurer gave a reasonable excuse, did not default willfully, caused no prejudice and had a possible meritorious defense.
St. Luke's Roosevelt Hosp. v Blue Ridge Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 06666) Appellate Division, Second Department, September 12, 2005Relief denied because the party showed neither a reasonable excuse nor a potentially meritorious defense or claimReversed vacatur of the judgment entered on the insurer's default in opposing summary judgment because counsel's law office failure excuse was conclusory and the insurer showed no meritorious defense, its denial being untimely and its coverage affidavit insufficient.
New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Insurance Co. of State of Pa. (2005 NY Slip Op 01691) Appellate Division, Second Department, March 7, 2005Relief denied because no potentially meritorious defense or cause of action was shown; excuse accepted or not reachedReinstated the default judgment because, under CPLR 317 or 5015 (a) (1), the insurer showed no meritorious defense: it submitted no proposed answer, its untimely response precluded its defenses, and its no-coverage affidavit was insufficient.
New York Univ. Hosp. Tisch Inst. v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 01332) Appellate Division, Second Department, February 22, 2005Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedHeld the insurer's default excused because an inexperienced claims adjuster reasonably believed that telling plaintiff's counsel benefits were exhausted would end the matter, and with the meritorious exhaustion defense, brief delay and no prejudice vacatur was warranted.
New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 09609) Appellate Division, Second Department, December 27, 2004Relief denied because no reasonable excuse (or, under CPLR 317, no lack of actual notice) was shown; meritorious defense accepted or not reachedReversed vacatur of the judgment entered on the insurer's failure to appear or answer because the insurer failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default.
Hospital for Joint Diseases v ELRAC, Inc. (2004 NY Slip Op 07140) Leading case Appellate Division, Second Department, October 4, 2004Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedUpheld vacating the default judgment because the attorney's detailed affirmation showed non-willful law office failure, promptly cured without prejudice, and a claims representative's business-records affidavit showed a meritorious verification defense.
Matter of Macias v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (2004 NY Slip Op 06327) Appellate Division, Second Department, August 9, 2004Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedVacated the order entered on MVAIC's default in opposing the petition to compel payment of a judgment because its attorney substantiated his failure to timely submit papers and MVAIC showed a meritorious defense under Insurance Law § 5208.
Mount Sinai Hosp. of Queens v Hertz Corp. (2004 NY Slip Op 00234) Appellate Division, Second Department, January 20, 2004Relief denied because the party showed neither a reasonable excuse nor a potentially meritorious defense or claimUpheld denial of the defendants' motion to vacate the default judgment because they failed to present a reasonable excuse for the default and failed to establish a meritorious defense.
Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr. v Merchants Ins. Co. of N.H. (2003 NY Slip Op 19994) Appellate Division, Second Department, December 29, 2003Relief denied because no reasonable excuse (or, under CPLR 317, no lack of actual notice) was shown; meritorious defense accepted or not reachedReversed vacatur of the default summary judgment because the insurer knew of the judgment and moved only after a contempt motion, an intentional default that was not excusable.

Appellate Division, Third Department (3 decisions)

Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v DiLorenzo (2020 NY Slip Op 02845) Appellate Division, Third Department, May 14, 2020Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedExcused the claimant's one-week late answer because the delay was de minimis, he timely opposed with a meritorious defense, the default was not willful, the insurer suffered no prejudice, and policy favors merits resolution.
Dinstber v Allstate Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 06200) Appellate Division, Third Department, July 22, 2010Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedHeld the insurer's late verified answer was properly accepted under CPLR 3012(d) because delayed receipt from the Insurance Department, a misdated transmittal and law office failure were a reasonable excuse, the delay was minimal, and its denial showed meritorious defenses.
Parker v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2006 NYSlipOp 01352) Appellate Division, Third Department, February 23, 2006Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowed (also decides)Upheld vacatur of the dismissal entered on the plaintiff's default in opposing a CPLR 3126 motion, holding a CPLR 5015 (a) (1) motion, rather than an appeal, was proper because the default was in opposing the motion.

Appellate Term, First Department (2 decisions)

ALFA Med. Supplies, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50942(U)) Appellate Term, First Department, June 20, 2016Relief denied because no reasonable excuse (or, under CPLR 317, no lack of actual notice) was shown; meritorious defense accepted or not reachedReinstated the default judgment because the claim representative's no-record affidavit lacked personal knowledge of the procedures at the office that received process, so it showed no reasonable excuse for the two-year delay in answering.
Rally Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC (2012 NY Slip Op 50325(U)) Appellate Term, First Department, February 28, 2012Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedVacated the default for failing to appear at a compliance conference because counsel's miscalendaring was excusable, non-willful law office failure, with no claimed prejudice or lack of a meritorious defense and a policy favoring the merits.

Appellate Term, Second Department (127 decisions)

Midwood Metro. Med., P.C. v Permanent Gen. Assur. Corp. (2026 NY Slip Op 51589(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, September 18, 2026Relief denied because no reasonable excuse (or, under CPLR 317, no lack of actual notice) was shown; meritorious defense accepted or not reachedReversed vacatur because the insurer's bare claim of nonreceipt, from a representative who searched its files, did not rebut service on its registered agent, and CPLR 317 was unavailable since the agent was personally served.
Shamayim Chiropractic, P.C. v Permanent Gen. Assur. Corp. (2026 NY Slip Op 50791(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, May 15, 2026Relief denied because no reasonable excuse (or, under CPLR 317, no lack of actual notice) was shown; meritorious defense accepted or not reachedHeld the insurer's database-search denial of receipt was no reasonable excuse because it did not specifically contradict the process server's affidavit, and CPLR 317 was unavailable since its registered agent was personally served.
Circular Symmetry Acupuncture, P.C. v MTA Bus Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 50189(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, January 16, 2026Relief denied because no reasonable excuse (or, under CPLR 317, no lack of actual notice) was shown; meritorious defense accepted or not reachedDenied the insurer's cross motion to compel acceptance of its untimely answer because no one with personal knowledge explained the late answer and the provider had not waived the lateness; the meritorious defense was not reached.
Burke Physical Therapy, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51513(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, August 8, 2025Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedHeld the trial court providently exercised its discretion in opening the insurer's default and compelling the provider to accept its amended answer.
Medical Supply of NY Corp. v Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 50504(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, April 4, 2025Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedAffirmed vacatur under CPLR 317 because the insurer, served via DFS, did not receive the summons until too late to answer within 30 days and showed a potentially meritorious workers' compensation defense.
Trinity Medicine, P.C. v National Gen. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 50197(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, February 14, 2025Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedUpheld opening the insurer's default and compelling acceptance of its late answer because an isolated, inadvertent failure to serve was excusable law office failure without prejudice, and a prior declaratory judgment of no coverage supplied a meritorious res judicata defense.
Jacobson v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 51540(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, September 27, 2024Relief denied because no reasonable excuse (or, under CPLR 317, no lack of actual notice) was shown; meritorious defense accepted or not reachedHeld the claim representative's assertion of a clerical error in emailing the summons to counsel conclusory, since no one with personal knowledge described the error, who made or discovered it, and when, so no reasonable excuse was shown.
Good Care Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50205(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, February 16, 2024Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedUpheld compelling acceptance of the insurer's late answer under CPLR 3012 (d) because difficulty linking the out-of-state-served process to the inactive policy file was a reasonable excuse, without willfulness or prejudice.

Show all 127 decisions

Loading the list… If it does not appear, the full list is in the plain-text version.

Trial courts in the First Department (6 decisions)

Hertz Vehs., LLC v Ace Med Supplies Inc. (2025 NY Slip Op 51959(U)) Supreme Court, New York County, October 7, 2025Relief denied because no potentially meritorious defense or cause of action was shown; excuse accepted or not reached (also decides)Denied the defaulting provider's cross motion to compel acceptance of its untimely answer because, weighing the CPLR 3012 (d) factors and particularly the potential merits, its defense to the staged-accident noncoverage claim did not warrant relief.
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Carranza (2021 NY Slip Op 50284(U)) Supreme Court, New York County, April 7, 2021Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedCompelled acceptance of the providers' month-late answer because the delay was brief, no prejudice was shown, law office failure from caseload, Secretary of State service and an office move was sufficient, and they had a potentially meritorious defense.
Allstate Ins. Co. v DHD Med., P.C. (2021 NY Slip Op 50011(U)) Supreme Court, New York County, January 8, 2021Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedCompelled acceptance of the insurer's late reply to the provider's counterclaim because counsel's affidavit showed law office failure, excusable amid pandemic dislocation, and the IME report supplied a potentially meritorious defense.
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Sky Limit Physical Therapy, P.C. (2020 NY Slip Op 50558(U)) Supreme Court, New York County, May 13, 2020Relief denied because the party showed neither a reasonable excuse nor a potentially meritorious defense or claim (also decides)Held that, even if treated as a vacatur motion, the insurer would fail because it offered no reasonable excuse for twice missing preliminary conferences and its staged-accident claim rested on an unsworn report.
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Martin (2020 NY Slip Op 50511(U)) Supreme Court, New York County, May 4, 2020Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedExtended the providers' time to answer under CPLR 317 because their affidavits, though a close question, showed they did not personally receive timely notice of the summons, and the insurer's deficient proof gave them meritorious defenses.
Chubb Ins. Co. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51985(U)) Supreme Court, New York County, September 29, 2008Relief denied because the party showed neither a reasonable excuse nor a potentially meritorious defense or claimHeld the respondent insurer's default not excused because its conclusory claim of non-receipt did not rebut proof of service on the Superintendent, and its attack on the original award was no meritorious defense to the petition.

Trial courts in the Second Department (9 decisions)

JPM Physical Therapy, P.C. v Foremost Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 50089(U)) Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, January 27, 2026Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedCompelled acceptance of the insurer's answer served about seven days late, finding the delay de minimis and excusing it under the policy favoring resolution on the merits, and denied the provider's default-judgment cross motion.
Prompt Med. Supply Inc v Metropolitan Gen. Ins Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50654(U)) Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, May 31, 2024Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedHeld the insurer's answer, filed with the clerk on the last day but received thirteen days late, reflected a de minimis, non-willful delay causing no prejudice, so the default judgment was vacated and the answer compelled.
Kalitenko v Integon Natl. Ins. Co. (2023 NY Slip Op 50218(U)) Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, March 20, 2023Relief denied because no reasonable excuse (or, under CPLR 317, no lack of actual notice) was shown; meritorious defense accepted or not reached (also decides)Declined to compel acceptance of the insurer's untimely, rejected answer because the insurer offered no reasonable excuse for its delay and never moved under CPLR 3012 (d).
Ema Acupuncture, P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50396(U)) Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, March 15, 2011Relief denied because no reasonable excuse (or, under CPLR 317, no lack of actual notice) was shown; meritorious defense accepted or not reached (also decides)Held that, even treating the insurer's renewal motion as one to vacate its default in opposing summary judgment, its law office failure excuse—an attorney's departure from the firm—was conclusory, unsupported by details or evidence, and insufficient.
Westchester Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 50511(U)) Supreme Court, Nassau County, March 25, 2009Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedVacated the default judgment and deemed the answer served because an employee's misindexing of the summons was an excusable, short, non-willful delay causing no prejudice, and the insurer showed a meritorious no-coverage defense.
Alpha Health Care Plus Med. v Progressive Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 52209(U)) Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, November 23, 2007Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowed (also decides)Vacated the underlying default summary judgment in the interests of justice under the court's inherent power, although the insurer gave no reason for its nonappearance, because its staged-accident opposition and the declaratory judgment showed a potentially meritorious defense.
Deajess Med. Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51281(U)) Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, June 28, 2006Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowedCompelled acceptance of the late answer under CPLR 3012 (d) because the insurer showed a reasonable excuse, including bundled claims across several incidents and attempts to obtain a stipulation, a meritorious defense, and no prejudice.
Lefferts Med., Inc. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51136(U)) Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, June 20, 2006Relief denied because the party showed neither a reasonable excuse nor a potentially meritorious defense or claim (also decides)Held the insurer showed neither a reasonable excuse, lacking an affidavit from anyone with personal knowledge of the miscalculation, nor a meritorious defense, its affidavits not proving timely mailing, but vacated because plaintiff waived the late answer.

Show all 9 decisions

Loading the list… If it does not appear, the full list is in the plain-text version.

How this page is made: the decisions are those in our case-law database that cite this question's leading cases or were tagged with its subject. A language model read each one in full and recorded whether it rules on the question, the position it took and a one-sentence summary; a second, independent reading checked every entry. Court, department, date and the citation links come from the database. Read the decision before relying on it.