# 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.

- Decisions: 185 in the database, the most recent decided 2026-09-18
- Page: https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-topics/default-vacatur/

## Leading authorities

- [New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 04260)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-york-presbyt-hosp-v-allstate-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-04260/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2006. CPLR 317: insurer served via Superintendent needs no excuse: An 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.
- [Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 10596)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/montefiore-med-ctr-v-auto-one-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op-10596/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2008. Mere denial of receipt neither excuses default nor proves no notice: Where 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.
- [Hospital for Joint Diseases v ELRAC, Inc. (2004 NY Slip Op 07140)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/hospital-for-joint-diseases-v-elrac-inc-2004-ny-slip-op-07140/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2004. Law office failure excuses default only with detailed explanation: The 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.
- [Westchester Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 00377)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/westchester-med-ctr-v-allstate-ins-co-2011-ny-slip-op-00377/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2011. Clerical delay forwarding summons is a reasonable excuse: An 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.
- [Interboro Ins. Co. v Perez (2013 NY Slip Op 08347)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/interboro-ins-co-v-perez-2013-ny-slip-op-08347/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2013. First Department: CPLR 3012 (d) needs no meritorious defense: In 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).
- [Pierre J. Renelique Physician, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 29225)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pierre-j-renelique-physician-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-29225/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019. No-record affidavit does not rebut service on insurer's agent: Against 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.
- Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138 (not in the database). Source 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.
- Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead v Jablonsky, 283 AD2d 553 (not in the database). Law office failure must be supported by facts in evidentiary form sufficient to justify the default (13 decisions).
- Kaperonis v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 254 AD2d 334 (not in the database). Service on an insurer through the Superintendent of Insurance (Insurance Law § 1212); cited with the 317 cases (5 decisions).
- Hayden v Southern Wine & Spirits of Upstate N.Y., Inc., 126 AD3d 673 (not in the database). Process 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).
- Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 15 AD3d 353 (not in the database). Second Department: CPLR 3012 (d) relief and vacatur both require a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense (9 decisions).
- Smoke v Windermere Owners, LLC, 109 AD3d 742 (not in the database). First Department: no meritorious defense required under CPLR 3012 (d); followed in Interboro v Perez.

## 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.

- [11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (c)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/11-nycrr-65-3-8/#c) [also relevant]: The insurer must pay or deny within 30 calendar days after proof of claim; under the case law an insurer's potentially meritorious defense is usually one preserved by a timely denial, or a lack-of-coverage defense that a late denial does not preclude.

## Categories

- **Default excused**: The court holds that the defaulting party is entitled to relief from its default: it showed a reasonable excuse (e.g. a detailed, sworn account of law office failure or clerical error, a brief and non-willful delay) or, under CPLR 317, that it did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend, together with a potentially meritorious defense or cause of action; or the court excuses the default on the balance of brief delay, lack of willfulness, lack of prejudice and the policy favouring the merits; or (First Department) excuses a late answer under CPLR 3012 (d) without requiring a meritorious defense. Result: default vacated or vacatur affirmed, late answer compelled or time to answer extended, or a default-judgment motion denied because the default is excused.
- **No reasonable excuse**: The court holds that the defaulting party failed to show a reasonable excuse: e.g. a mere or conclusory denial of receipt that does not rebut the process server's affidavit or the presumption of service on the Superintendent/DFS, the Secretary of State or a registered agent; an affidavit by someone without personal knowledge of the office procedures at the office that received process, or no affidavit from the person served or the person who made the error; conclusory, vague or contradictory law office failure; an intentional or willful default; and it either does not reach the meritorious defense ('it is unnecessary to consider whether ... a potentially meritorious defense') or finds one. Includes holdings that CPLR 317 is unavailable (process personally delivered to the defendant or its designated agent) or not satisfied, where the CPLR 5015 (a) (1) excuse also fails or was not argued.
- **No meritorious defense**: The court holds that the defaulting party failed to show a potentially meritorious defense (or, for a defaulting plaintiff, cause of action): e.g. an answer verified only by counsel or an attorney's affirmation without personal knowledge; an insurer's defense that would be precluded because it did not show a timely denial (or the denial was defective or conclusory), with no non-precludable coverage defense; a staged-accident or declaratory-judgment defense that does not match the accident at issue; MVAIC's Insurance Law § 5214 argument. The court either accepts the excuse or says it need not reach it.
- **Neither shown**: The court expressly holds that both elements fail: no reasonable excuse (or lack of actual notice) and no potentially meritorious defense or cause of action.
- **Hearing or remittal**: The court holds that whether the default should be excused cannot be decided on the papers: it orders a hearing (e.g. on receipt of process or actual notice) or remits the motion for a determination of the excuse or the meritorious defense, without deciding them itself.

## Decisions (185)

Highest court first, then department, newest first. Each entry: court and date, the category, [central] where the result turns on this question or [also decides], then a one-sentence summary written by a language model from the decision and checked by a second reading.

### Appellate Division, First Department

- [Hereford Ins. Co. v Interdependent Acupuncture PLLC (2025 NY Slip Op 00021)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/hereford-ins-co-v-interdependent-acupuncture-pllc-2025-ny-slip-op-00021/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2025-01-02 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Upheld 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-baucage-2017-ny-slip-op-00015/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2017-01-03 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Upheld 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/interboro-ins-co-v-perez-2013-ny-slip-op-08347/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2013-12-12 — Default excused [central]: Upheld 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/victoria-ins-co-v-utica-mut-ins-co-2004-ny-slip-op-04859/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2004-06-10 — No meritorious defense [central]: Held 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

- [American Tr. Ins. Co. v Bruno Med. Supply, Inc. (2026 NY Slip Op 01332)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-bruno-med-supply-inc-2026-ny-slip-op-01332/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-11 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Denied 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/lancer-ins-co-v-fishkin-2022-ny-slip-op-06921/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2022-12-07 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/global-liberty-ins-co-v-shahid-mian-m-d-p-c-2019-ny-slip-op-04144/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2019-05-29 — Default excused [central]: Upheld 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/progressive-cas-ins-co-v-excel-prods-inc-2019-ny-slip-op-02569/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2019-04-03 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/allstate-ins-co-v-north-shore-univ-hosp-2018-ny-slip-op-05268/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2018-07-18 — Default excused [central]: Held 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-v-austin-diagnostic-med-p-c-2017-ny-slip-op05992/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2017-08-02 — No meritorious defense [central]: Upheld 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/liberty-county-mut-v-avenue-i-med-p-c-2015-ny-slip-op-04815/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2015-06-10 — Neither shown [central]: Held 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-york-hosp-med-ctr-of-queens-v-nationwide-mut-ins-co-2014-nyslip-op-06188/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2014-09-17 — Default excused [central]: Upheld 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.
- [NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 06288)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/nyu-hospital-for-joint-diseases-v-praetorian-ins-co-2012-ny-slip-op06288/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2012-09-26 — Default excused [central]: Upheld 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/westchester-med-ctr-v-allstate-ins-co-2011-ny-slip-op-00377/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2011-01-18 — Default excused [central]: Held 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/westchester-med-ctr-v-philadelphia-indem-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op00138/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2010-01-05 — Neither shown [central]: Reversed 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/st-barnabas-hosp-v-allstate-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-07824/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2009-10-27 — No meritorious defense [central]: Held 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/st-vincents-hosp-med-ctr-v-hanover-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op00674/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2009-02-03 — Default excused [central]: Held 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/westchester-med-ctr-v-hartford-cas-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-00528/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2009-01-27 — Default excused [central]: Held 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/montefiore-med-ctr-v-auto-one-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op-10596/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2008-12-30 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/hospital-for-joint-diseases-v-lincoln-gen-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op-07619/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2008-10-07 — Default excused [central]: Affirmed 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/st-vincents-hosp-med-ctr-v-allstate-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-06227/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2007-07-24 — Default excused [central]: Held 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/westchester-med-ctr-v-aiu-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-04285/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2007-05-15 — Default excused [central]: Held 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/montefiore-med-ctr-v-hartford-acc-indem-co-2007-ny-slip-op-01531/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2007-02-20 — Default excused [central]: Upheld 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/sound-shore-med-ctr-v-lumbermens-mut-cas-co-2006-ny-slip-op-05939/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2006-07-25 — Default excused [central]: Upheld 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-york-univ-hosp-rusk-inst-v-illinois-natl-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-05601/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2006-07-11 — Default excused [central]: Held 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-york-presbyt-hosp-v-allstate-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-04260/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2006-05-30 — Default excused [central]: Affirmed 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-york-presbyt-hosp-v-auto-one-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-02509/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2006-04-04 — Default excused [central]: Upheld 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-york-presbyt-hosp-v-american-home-assur-co-2006-ny-slip-op-02510/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2006-04-04 — Default excused [central]: Upheld 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-york-presbyt-hosp-v-travelers-prop-cas-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-02344/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2006-03-28 — Default excused [central]: Upheld 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/hospital-for-joint-diseases-v-dollar-rent-a-car-2006-ny-slip-op-00141/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2006-01-10 — Default excused [central]: Upheld 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/st-lukes-roosevelt-hosp-v-blue-ridge-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-06666/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2005-09-12 — Neither shown [central]: Reversed 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-york-hosp-med-ctr-of-queens-v-insurance-co-of-state-of-pa-2005-ny-slip-op-01691/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2005-03-07 — No meritorious defense [central]: Reinstated 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-york-univ-hosp-tisch-inst-v-merchants-mut-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-01332/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2005-02-22 — Default excused [central]: Held 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-york-hosp-med-ctr-of-queens-v-clarendon-natl-ins-co-2004-ny-slip-op-09609/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2004-12-27 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Reversed 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/hospital-for-joint-diseases-v-elrac-inc-2004-ny-slip-op-07140/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2004-10-04 — Default excused [central]: Upheld 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-macias-v-motor-veh-acc-indem-corp-2004-ny-slip-op-06327/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2004-08-09 — Default excused [central]: Vacated 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/mount-sinai-hosp-of-queens-v-hertz-corp-2004-ny-slip-op-00234/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2004-01-20 — Neither shown [central]: Upheld 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/wyckoff-hgts-med-ctr-v-merchants-ins-co-of-n-h-2003-ny-slip-op-19994/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2003-12-29 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Reversed 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

- [Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v DiLorenzo (2020 NY Slip Op 02845)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/preferred-mut-ins-co-v-dilorenzo-2020-ny-slip-op-02845/) — Appellate Division, Third Department, 2020-05-14 — Default excused [central]: Excused 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/dinstber-v-allstate-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op-06200/) — Appellate Division, Third Department, 2010-07-22 — Default excused [central]: Held 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/parker-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2006-nyslipop-01352/) — Appellate Division, Third Department, 2006-02-23 — Default excused [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

- [ALFA Med. Supplies, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50942(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/alfa-med-supplies-inc-v-allstate-ins-co-2016-ny-slip-op50942u/) — Appellate Term, First Department, 2016-06-20 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Reinstated 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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/rally-chiropractic-p-c-v-mvaic-2012-ny-slip-op-50325u/) — Appellate Term, First Department, 2012-02-28 — Default excused [central]: Vacated 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

- [Midwood Metro. Med., P.C. v Permanent Gen. Assur. Corp. (2026 NY Slip Op 51589(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/midwood-metro-med-p-c-v-permanent-gen-assur-corp-2026-ny-slip-op-51589u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2026-09-18 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Reversed 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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/shamayim-chiropractic-p-c-v-permanent-gen-assur-corp-2026-ny-slip-op-50791u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2026-05-15 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held 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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/circular-symmetry-acupuncture-p-c-v-mta-bus-co-2026-ny-slip-op-50189u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2026-01-16 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Denied 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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/burke-physical-therapy-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2025-ny-slip-op-51513u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2025-08-08 — Default excused [central]: Held 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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/medical-supply-of-ny-corp-v-berkshire-hathaway-homestate-ins-co-2025-ny-slip-op-50504u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2025-04-04 — Default excused [central]: Affirmed 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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/trinity-medicine-p-c-v-national-gen-ins-co-2025-ny-slip-op-50197u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2025-02-14 — Default excused [central]: Upheld 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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/jacobson-v-state-farm-fire-cas-co-2024-ny-slip-op-51540u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2024-09-27 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held 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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/good-care-chiropractic-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2024-ny-slip-op-50205u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2024-02-16 — Default excused [central]: Upheld 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.
- [Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2023 NY Slip Op 51471(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/art-of-healing-medicine-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2023-ny-slip-op-51471u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2023-12-22 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the insurer showed no reasonable excuse because its claim of nonreceipt lacked an affidavit from the employee named as served, and its COVID-19 staff-reduction explanation was conclusory, so the meritorious defense was not reached.
- [Psychmetrics Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2023 NY Slip Op 50690(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/psychmetrics-med-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2023-ny-slip-op50690u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2023-06-23 — Default excused [central]: Upheld vacatur of the dismissal entered on the provider's failure to proceed at trial because its witness was out of the country, a reasonable excuse, and it showed a meritorious cause of action.
- [Himalayans Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Cas. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50904(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/himalayans-acupuncture-p-c-v-geico-cas-co-2022-ny-slip-op-50904u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2022-08-19 — Default excused [central]: Held the insurer's attorney gave a detailed and credible account of law office failure, the motion was made two days after the default order, and the provider did not dispute a meritorious opposition, so vacatur was proper.
- [Parisien v Allstate Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 22262)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/parisien-v-allstate-ins-co-2022-ny-slip-op-22262/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2022-08-12 — Default excused [central]: Upheld vacatur where the insurer's failure to forward the complaint was not part of a pattern of neglect, counsel acted promptly, the undisputed lack-of-coverage defense had merit, the plaintiff claimed no prejudice from the brief delay and policy favored the merits.
- [Hand By Hand, PT, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50774(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/hand-by-hand-pt-p-c-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2022-ny-slip-op50774u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2022-07-22 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the insurer's claimed law office failure was not a detailed excuse because counsel only blamed a wrong index number and never explained why both answers were mailed to the wrong address, so the meritorious defense was not reached.
- [Ahava Med. Diagnostic, P.C. v Hertz Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50298(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ahava-med-diagnostic-p-c-v-hertz-co-2022-ny-slip-op-50298u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2022-04-01 — Default excused [central]: Held the insurer showed a reasonable excuse through law office failure and a potentially meritorious defense through a prior declaratory judgment of noncoverage against the provider, so the default judgment should have been vacated.
- [Cautious Care Med., P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50785(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/cautious-care-med-p-c-v-21st-century-ins-co-2021-ny-slip-op50785u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2021-08-06 — Default excused [central]: Upheld vacatur because the employee allegedly served gave a detailed affidavit of her process-receipt procedures, the absence of any record of this suit, and her records of other process received that day, establishing a reasonable excuse.
- [Ahava Med. Diagnostic, P.C. v Hertz Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50772(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ahava-med-diagnostic-p-c-v-hertz-co-2021-ny-slip-op-50772u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2021-07-30 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the insurer showed no reasonable excuse because its claim representative's papers gave no detailed account of the office failure and lacked an affidavit from the responsible person, so the meritorious defense need not be reached.
- [Hands On Physical Therapy Care v MVAIC (2021 NY Slip Op 50576(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/hands-on-physical-therapy-care-v-mvaic-2021-ny-slip-op-50576u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2021-06-21 — Default excused [central]: Upheld vacating the default judgment against MVAIC, finding it established a reasonable excuse for its slightly late answer, while the provider did not challenge the implicit finding of a potentially meritorious defense.
- [Yumi Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50432(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/yumi-acupuncture-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2021-ny-slip-op-50432u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2021-05-14 — Neither shown [central]: Reversed vacatur and denied compelling acceptance of the late answer because the insurer failed to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious defense.
- [Physiodynamics, LLC v Allstate Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50178(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/physiodynamics-llc-v-allstate-ins-co-2021-ny-slip-op-50178u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2021-03-05 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Reversed vacatur because the insurer did not sufficiently allege its claimed law office failure, so it showed no reasonable excuse for defaulting in appearing or answering.
- [ZG Chiropractic Care, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50079(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/zg-chiropractic-care-p-c-v-21st-century-ins-co-2021-ny-slip-op50079u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2021-02-05 — Default excused [central]: Held the insurer showed a reasonable excuse for failing to oppose because a Supreme Court stay was in effect when opposition was due, and a meritorious defense through the later declaratory judgment of no coverage.
- [Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2020 NY Slip Op 51433(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/art-of-healing-medicine-p-c-v-global-liberty-ins-co-of-n-y-2020-ny-slip-op51433u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-11-20 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the insurer showed no reasonable excuse because it admitted personal delivery of process and offered only that a high claim volume kept its adjuster from reviewing the summons for six months; merit not reached.
- [ABC Physical Therapy, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51325(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/abc-physical-therapy-p-c-v-geico-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op-51325u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-11-06 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the insurer failed to show a reasonable excuse for its default in answering because its law office failure claim lacked a detailed and credible explanation, so the late answer could not be compelled.
- [New Age Acupuncture, P.C. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51225(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-age-acupuncture-p-c-v-global-liberty-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op51225u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-10-16 — Default excused [central]: Held the insurer's default at a calendar call should have been opened for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice because a Supreme Court declaratory judgment barred the action.
- [Milky Way Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50935(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/milky-way-acupuncture-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op50935u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-08-07 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Reversed vacatur because the insurer's employee affidavit, virtually identical to one previously found deficient, did not establish a reasonable excuse rebutting proper service on its authorized general agents.
- [TAM Med. Supply Corp. v Republic W. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50732(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/tam-med-supply-corp-v-republic-w-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op50732u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-06-12 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the provider failed to excuse its late opposition to the insurer's motion because its calendar clerk's account of law office failure was insufficient, so the meritorious opposition was not reached.
- [Freedom Chiropractic, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50686(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/freedom-chiropractic-p-c-v-21st-century-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op50686u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-06-05 — Default excused [also decides]: Upheld vacatur because the insurer received less than the required notice of the default-judgment motion and, in any event, showed an excusable default and a meritorious defense in a prior declaratory judgment voiding coverage.
- [Renelique v Allstate Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50401(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/renelique-v-allstate-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op-50401u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-03-13 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Upheld denial of vacatur because the claim representative's assertion of no record of receiving process, without an affidavit from the agent served or an explanation for its absence, was no reasonable excuse.
- [New Age Med., P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50316(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-age-med-p-c-v-geico-gen-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op50316u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-02-28 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the insurer showed no reasonable excuse for its default because it failed to explain why it waited a year after its answer was rejected for the wrong index number before serving a corrected answer, so the meritorious defense was not reached.
- [Super Acupuncture & Herbology, P.C. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2020 NY Slip Op 50178(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/super-acupuncture-herbology-p-c-v-global-liberty-ins-co-of-n-y-2020-nyslip-op-50178u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-01-31 — No reasonable excuse [also decides]: Held vacatur properly denied chiefly because the movant omitted the briefing stipulation required by CPLR 2214 (c), and in any event its law office failure claim lacked supporting facts in evidentiary form justifying the late cross motion.
- [Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50067(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/gentlecare-ambulatory-anesthesia-servs-v-geico-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op50067u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-01-17 — Hearing or remittal [central]: Held the lower court erred in finding a potentially meritorious defense by relying on a later summary judgment order it should not have entertained, and remitted for an independent determination of the motion to vacate on the moving papers.
- [SS Med. Care, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 52057(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ss-med-care-p-c-v-21st-century-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-52057u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-12-13 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the insurer's conclusory claim that it was in the process of filing a declaratory judgment action was not a reasonable excuse for failing to oppose summary judgment, making the meritorious-opposition question unnecessary to reach.
- [Pavlova v Nationwide Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 52056(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pavlova-v-nationwide-ins-2019-ny-slip-op-52056u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-12-13 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the lower court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in finding that the provider failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default in opposing the insurer's summary judgment motion.
- [Market St. Surgical Ctr. v Autoone Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 52054(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/market-st-surgical-ctr-v-autoone-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-52054u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-12-13 — No meritorious defense [central]: Held vacatur should have been denied because the provider failed to demonstrate a meritorious opposition to the insurer's summary judgment motion that had been granted on its default.
- [Island Life Chiropractic Pain Care, PLLC v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 52061(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/island-life-chiropractic-pain-care-pllc-v-mvaic-2019-ny-slip-op-52061u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-12-13 — Default excused [central]: Upheld opening MVAIC's default in answering and compelling acceptance of its late answer, since the motion court reasonably accepted its excuse and it showed a potentially meritorious lack-of-coverage defense that the injuries did not arise from an insured incident.
- [City Chiropractic, P.C. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2019 NY Slip Op 51981(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/city-chiropractic-p-c-v-global-liberty-ins-co-of-n-y-2019-ny-slip-op51981u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-12-06 — Default excused [central]: Held the insurer's default at trial should be opened in the interests of substantial justice, since its incoming counsel had presented the consent affidavit and notice of appearance and promptly obtained a substitution order.
- [GC Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51954(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/gc-chiropractic-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51954u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-11-29 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Upheld denial of vacatur because the insurer's employee affidavit, virtually identical to one previously found deficient, failed to establish an excusable default against proper service on an authorized employee.
- [Diagnostic Medicine, P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51891(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/diagnostic-medicine-p-c-v-auto-one-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-51891u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-11-22 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the insurer's bald, unsupported denial of receiving notices of trial did not establish an excusable default, so the underlying trial default could not be relieved and the meritorious defense need not be considered.
- [Urban Well Acupuncture, P.C. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51630(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/urban-well-acupuncture-p-c-v-metropolitan-prop-cas-ins-co-2019-ny-slipop-51630u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-11 — No meritorious defense [central]: Held that, if the summary judgment order was entered on default, the provider failed to show a meritorious opposition to the insurer's EUO no-show motion, so vacatur was properly denied.
- [Right Aid Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51415(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/right-aid-med-supply-corp-v-travelers-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51415u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-08-23 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the provider showed no reasonable excuse for its default in opposing summary judgment because its claimed one-day law office delay was contradicted by the record showing service over a month late, so whether its opposition was potentially meritorious need not be considered.
- [Right Aid Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51414(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/right-aid-med-supply-corp-v-travelers-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51414u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-08-23 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held vacatur properly denied because the provider, wrongly claiming timely service under the stipulation, offered no excuse for its late opposition and cross motion; the excuse raised first on appeal was not considered.
- [Santomauro v Allstate Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51413(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/santomauro-v-allstate-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-51413u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-08-23 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Reversed vacatur because the employee allegedly served did not say whether he was served or followed the described procedures then, and the claim representative's no-record assertion was conclusory, so no reasonable excuse was shown.
- [SS Med. Care, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51268(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ss-med-care-p-c-v-21st-century-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-51268u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-08-02 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the insurer's conclusory statement that it was filing a declaratory judgment action was not a reasonable excuse for failing to oppose summary judgment, so the meritorious opposition need not be considered.
- [SS Med. Care, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51267(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ss-med-care-p-c-v-21st-century-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-51267u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-08-02 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the insurer's conclusory excuse that it was preparing a declaratory judgment action no reasonable excuse for failing to oppose the summary judgment motion, so vacatur was denied without reaching the meritorious opposition.
- [Pierre J. Renelique Physician, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 29225)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pierre-j-renelique-physician-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-29225/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-07-19 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held nonreceipt of process was no reasonable excuse because the insurer offered only a claim representative's no-record affidavit, with no affidavit from the agent served or explanation of its absence, so vacatur was reversed.
- [Prompt Med. Supply, Inc. v Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. (2019 NY Slip Op 50685(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/prompt-med-supply-inc-v-nationwide-affinity-ins-co-of-am-2019-ny-slip-op50685u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-05-03 — Default excused [central]: Upheld vacatur of the default judgment and deemed the insurer's answer timely, finding no merit to the provider's sole contention that the insurer failed to show a reasonable excuse for its brief default.
- [Prompt Med. Supply, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50504(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/prompt-med-supply-inc-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op50504u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-03-29 — Default excused [central]: Affirmed the order vacating the default judgment and compelling the provider to accept the insurer's late answer, for the reasons stated in a companion appeal decided the same day.
- [Prompt Med. Supply, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50503(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/prompt-med-supply-inc-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op50503u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-03-29 — Default excused [central]: Upheld vacatur and compelled acceptance of the late answer because the insurer reasonably believed the provider might withdraw the action and was told no default would be sought, and it showed a potentially meritorious unanswered-verification defense.
- [Aminov v Allstate Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50056(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/aminov-v-allstate-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-50056u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-01-04 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the insurer showed no reasonable excuse because its claim representative's bare assertion that it was not served lacked detail and no affidavit came from the employee served; the unexplained 11-month delay was also noted.
- [Right Solution Med. Supply, Inc. v Republic W. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51125(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/right-solution-med-supply-inc-v-republic-w-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op51125u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2018-07-13 — Default excused [central]: Held the insurer entitled to vacatur of the judgment entered on its failure to proceed at trial, having shown a reasonable excuse and a meritorious staged-accident defense supported by the assignor's admission and a default declaratory judgment.
- [SZ Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50497(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/sz-med-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op-50497u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2018-04-06 — Neither shown [central]: Held the provider not entitled to vacate the dismissal for failing to proceed at trial because it offered no excuse for being unready or for its seven-month delay and, in any event, showed no meritorious cause of action.
- [Premier Surgical Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50273(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/premier-surgical-servs-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op50273u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2018-02-23 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the insurer's default in answering not excused because its attorney's affirmation gave only a conclusory, not detailed and credible, account of law office failure, making the meritorious defense unnecessary to consider.
- [Pro-Med Med., P.C. v MVAIC (2018 NY Slip Op 50152(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pro-med-med-p-c-v-mvaic-2018-ny-slip-op-50152u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2018-02-02 — Neither shown [central]: Held MVAIC showed neither a reasonable excuse nor a meritorious defense, since its claim of first learning of the action years later lacked personal knowledge or record support and it admitted having no documentation of the claim.
- [Hu-Nam-Nam v Auto One Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51781(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/hu-nam-nam-v-auto-one-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op-51781u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2017-12-15 — Default excused [central]: Held the insurer's default in answering excused and the late answer compelled because it established a reasonable excuse and made a prima facie showing of a lack-of-medical-necessity defense.
- [Mind & Body Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51517(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/mind-body-acupuncture-p-c-v-geico-gen-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op51517u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2017-11-03 — Default excused [central]: Upheld vacatur because the insurer's belief that its answer was mailed under its law firm's standard procedures was a reasonable excuse, with a potentially meritorious defense, no willfulness and no prejudice.
- [Hurgada Physical Therapist, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51449(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/hurgada-physical-therapist-p-c-v-ny-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op51449u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2017-10-27 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the provider's default in opposing summary judgment not excused because counsel's heavy workload was mere neglect, making its potentially meritorious opposition unnecessary to consider.
- [Pain Mgt. Ctr. of N.J., P.C. v All Car Rent-A-Car (2017 NY Slip Op 51310(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pain-mgt-ctr-of-n-j-p-c-v-all-car-rent-a-car-2017-ny-slip-op-51310u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2017-09-29 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the self-insurer showed no reasonable excuse for its three-month delay in answering, since its improper-service claim failed and it did not explain how the agent's alleged lack of authority prevented a timely answer.
- [Bayshore Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51121(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/bayshore-chiropractic-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op-51121u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2017-09-01 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the insurer's default in opposing summary judgment not excused because its claimed law office failure during the file transfer from prior counsel showed attorney neglect, not a detailed and credible excuse.
- [Village Med. Supply, Inc. v American Country Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50941(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/village-med-supply-inc-v-american-country-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op50941u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2017-07-21 — No meritorious defense [central]: Denied vacatur of the default judgment entered on the insurer's failure to appear at trial because its IME no-show denials were dated before it received the claims, so it showed no meritorious defense; did not reach the excuse.
- [Fatiha v Autoone Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50723(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/fatiha-v-autoone-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op-50723u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2017-05-23 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the insurer's default not excused because its claims examiner said only that failing to forward the summons was a mistake and that the default motion was scanned late, so the defense was not reached.
- [Hu-Nam-Nam v Allstate Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50685(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/hu-nam-nam-v-allstate-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op-50685u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2017-05-19 — No meritorious defense [central]: Held the insurer showed no potentially meritorious defense because its staged-accident evidence and declaratory judgment concerned a June 21 collision while the claim arose from a June 20 accident, with no explanation of the discrepancy.
- [Healthworx Med., P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50605(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/healthworx-med-p-c-v-auto-one-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op-50605u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2017-04-28 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the insurer's default in opposing summary judgment not excused because its attorney's allegations did not explain why no timely written opposition was submitted, so the meritorious defense was not reached.
- [Maximum Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50552(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/maximum-chiropractic-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op50552u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2017-04-11 — Default excused [central]: Upheld compelling acceptance of the insurer's late answer because detailed affidavits and documents showed it never received the summons and complaint and that it had a potentially meritorious lack-of-medical-necessity defense.
- [S & R Med., P.C. v Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50551(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/s-r-med-p-c-v-allstate-prop-cas-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op50551u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2017-04-11 — Neither shown [central]: Held the insurer's cross motion to compel acceptance of its untimely answer should have been denied because it essentially conceded it offered neither a reasonable excuse nor a meritorious defense.
- [Clinton Place Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50400(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/clinton-place-med-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op-50400u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2017-03-31 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Upheld denial of the insurer's motion to vacate a default judgment entered on its failure to oppose summary judgment because the record showed a pattern of neglect that need not be excused as law office failure.
- [Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v Hertz Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50210(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/alleviation-med-servs-p-c-v-hertz-co-2017-ny-slip-op-50210u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2017-02-08 — Default excused [central]: Held the insurer's default at the calendar call excused as law office failure (attorney ill, covering attorney delayed by an accident), and a prior Supreme Court declaratory default judgment of noncoverage supplied a meritorious res judicata defense.
- [Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50118(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/longevity-med-supply-inc-v-state-farm-fire-cas-co-2017-ny-slip-op-50118u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2017-01-20 — Default excused [central]: Held the attorney's detailed, credible law office failure account excused the provider's late opposition, and vacated the default as to one claim whose mailing was shown, but not as to two claims timely denied for EUO no-shows.
- [EMC Health Prods., Inc. v Erie Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2016 NY Slip Op 51788(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/emc-health-prods-inc-v-erie-ins-co-of-n-y-2016-ny-slip-op51788u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2016-12-07 — Default excused [central]: Vacated the order entered on the insurer's failure to appear for oral argument because counsel's affirmation that a traffic jam made him late was a reasonable excuse and the insurer showed potentially meritorious opposition and cross motion.
- [Atlantic Radiology Imaging, P.C. v Interboro Mut. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51031(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/atlantic-radiology-imaging-p-c-v-interboro-mut-ins-co-2016-ny-slip-op51031u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2016-06-23 — Default excused [central]: Vacated the order granting summary judgment on the insurer's failure to oppose because counsel and a paralegal gave a detailed, credible law office failure excuse and its own summary judgment papers showed a meritorious defense.
- [Brand Med. Supply, Inc. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50961(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/brand-med-supply-inc-v-praetorian-ins-co-2016-ny-slip-op50961u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2016-06-15 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Upheld denial of the provider's motion to vacate summary judgment granted on its late opposition because counsel's claim that the expert affirmation was not yet available was no reasonable excuse, and the ten-month delay in moving was unexplained.
- [Atlantic Radiology Imaging, P.C. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50321(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/atlantic-radiology-imaging-p-c-v-metropolitan-prop-cas-ins-co-2016ny-slip-op-50321u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2016-03-11 — Neither shown [central]: Upheld denial of the provider's motion to vacate summary judgment granted on its failure to oppose because vague law office failure was no reasonable excuse and the insurer's EUO mailing and nonappearance proof left no meritorious opposition.
- [Gaetane Physical Therapy, P.C. v 21st Century N. Am. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50215(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/gaetane-physical-therapy-p-c-v-21st-century-n-am-ins-co-2016-ny-slipop-50215u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2016-02-23 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Upheld denial of the provider's motion to vacate summary judgment granted on its failure to oppose because its law office failure claim was conclusory and unsubstantiated and it delayed almost seven months in moving.
- [VE Med. Care, P.C. v Travelers Cas. Co. of Conn. (2015 NY Slip Op 50909(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ve-med-care-p-c-v-travelers-cas-co-of-conn-2015-ny-slip-op-50909u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2015-06-11 — Neither shown [central]: Held the provider showed no reasonable excuse for defaulting on the summary judgment motion, since its law office failure claims were conclusory, and further held it showed no meritorious cause of action, so vacatur was properly denied.
- [Edison Med. Servs., P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50479(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/edison-med-servs-p-c-v-clarendon-natl-ins-co-2015-ny-slip-op50479u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2015-03-26 — Neither shown [central]: Held the insurer's bare denial of receiving the default-judgment motion insufficient to rebut the affidavit of service, and found it neither explained its failure to answer nor showed a potentially meritorious defense.
- [A.B. Med., PLLC v Cna Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50199(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-pllc-v-cna-ins-co-2015-ny-slip-op-50199u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2015-02-23 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the provider's counsel showed no reasonable excuse for the late opposition: her heavy workload amounted to mere neglect, and she gave no reason for waiting almost ten months to move to vacate.
- [Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v MVAIC (2014 NY Slip Op 51261(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/delta-diagnostic-radiology-p-c-v-mvaic-2014-ny-slip-op-51261u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2014-08-08 — No meritorious defense [central]: Held MVAIC showed no potentially meritorious defense, because its claim that the assignor was not a qualified New York resident was refuted by the notarized notice of intention and police report it received, so the excuse need not be considered.
- [Queens-Roosevelt Med. Rehab, P.C. v Alea Care of Gab Robins Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50867(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/queens-roosevelt-med-rehab-p-c-v-alea-care-of-gab-robins-ins-co-2014ny-slip-op-50867u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2014-05-22 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the provider's default in opposing the summary judgment motion unexcused because counsel's statement that it was unknown why the appearing attorney lacked the opposition was conclusory, not a detailed law office failure explanation.
- [Central Radiology Servs., P.C. v First Am. Ins. (2013 NY Slip Op 51031(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/central-radiology-servs-p-c-v-first-am-ins-2013-ny-slip-op51031u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2013-06-17 — No meritorious defense [central]: Upheld denial of vacatur because the insurer's claims administrator only conclusorily asserted the assignor was injured in the course of employment, failing to show a meritorious defense.
- [Ventrudo v GEICO Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 52180(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ventrudo-v-geico-ins-co-2012-ny-slip-op-52180u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2012-11-26 — Neither shown [central]: Struck the provision deeming the defaulting insurer's answer served and accepted because the insurer failed to show a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious defense.
- [Jamhil Med., P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 52049(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/jamhil-med-p-c-v-tri-state-consumer-ins-co-2012-ny-slip-op52049u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2012-10-18 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Upheld denial of the insurer's motion to vacate an order granting unopposed summary judgment because it showed no reasonable excuse for failing to submit written opposition.
- [Modern Art Med., P.C. v MVAIC (2012 NY Slip Op 51492(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/modern-art-med-p-c-v-mvaic-2012-ny-slip-op-51492u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2012-08-06 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Denied MVAIC's cross motion to open its default and compel acceptance of its late answer because its claim representative's affidavit made no attempt to explain why it failed to answer timely.
- [D & r Med. Supply, Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50785(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/d-r-med-supply-inc-v-american-tr-ins-co-2012-ny-slip-op50785u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2012-04-27 — Default excused [central]: Vacated the order granting summary judgment on the insurer's default because the insurer offered a reasonable excuse for its untimely opposition and cross motion and set forth a meritorious defense.
- [East Gun Hill Med., P.C. v Fiduciary Ins. Co. of Am. (2012 NY Slip Op 50784(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/east-gun-hill-med-p-c-v-fiduciary-ins-co-of-am-2012-ny-slip-op50784u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2012-04-27 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Upheld denial of the insurer's motion to vacate an order granting unopposed summary judgment because its moving papers failed to proffer, let alone establish, a reasonable excuse for the default.
- [East Gun Hill Med., P.C. v Fiduciary Ins. Co. of Am. (2012 NY Slip Op 50783(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/east-gun-hill-med-p-c-v-fiduciary-ins-co-of-am-2012-ny-slip-op50783u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2012-04-27 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Upheld denial of the insurer's motion to vacate an order granting unopposed summary judgment because its moving papers failed to proffer, let alone establish, a reasonable excuse for the default.
- [East Gun Hill Med., P.C. v Fiduciary Ins. Co. of Am. (2012 NY Slip Op 50782(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/east-gun-hill-med-p-c-v-fiduciary-ins-co-of-am-2012-ny-slip-op50782u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2012-04-27 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Upheld denial of the insurer's motion to vacate an order granting unopposed summary judgment because its moving papers failed to proffer, let alone establish, a reasonable excuse for the default.
- [Modern Art Med., P.C. v MVAIC (2012 NY Slip Op 50395(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/modern-art-med-p-c-v-mvaic-2012-ny-slip-op-50395u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2012-03-02 — Default excused [central]: Upheld opening MVAIC's default and compelling acceptance of its late answer, and denial of plaintiff's default-judgment motion, as a provident exercise of discretion.
- [Crossbridge Diagnostic Radiology v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52294(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/crossbridge-diagnostic-radiology-v-progressive-northeastern-ins-co-2011-ny-slipop-52294u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2011-12-19 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Upheld denial of the provider's motion to vacate an order granting the insurer's unopposed summary judgment motion because the provider showed no reasonable excuse for failing to submit written opposition.
- [Jamaica Med. Supply, Inc. v MVAIC (2011 NY Slip Op 52008(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/jamaica-med-supply-inc-v-mvaic-2011-ny-slip-op-52008u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2011-10-27 — Neither shown [central]: Upheld denial of vacatur because MVAIC's moving papers showed no reasonable excuse and no meritorious defense, its Insurance Law § 5214 argument failing and its belated reply showing being disregarded.
- [Omega Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC (2011 NY Slip Op 50867(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/omega-diagnostic-imaging-p-c-v-mvaic-2011-ny-slip-op-50867u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2011-05-12 — No meritorious defense [central]: Upheld denial of vacatur because MVAIC's proffered defense, that Insurance Law § 5214 bars a default judgment against it, lacked merit, making it unnecessary to consider its excuse.
- [Omega Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC (2011 NY Slip Op 50331(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/omega-diagnostic-imaging-p-c-v-mvaic-2011-ny-slip-op-50331u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2011-03-02 — Default excused [central]: Held MVAIC defaulted by not submitting written opposition to summary judgment but was entitled to vacatur because it established a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense.
- [Edison Med. Servs., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50193(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/edison-med-servs-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2011-ny-slip-op50193u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2011-02-14 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the insurer offered no reasonable excuse for its late answer, since a clerical error in the answer's caption did not explain untimely service, so the meritorious defense need not be considered and vacatur was properly denied.
- [Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Alea N. Am. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52011(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/viviane-etienne-med-care-p-c-v-alea-n-am-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op52011u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-11-19 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the insurer showed no reasonable excuse because it and its claims administrator knowingly took no action for about eight months while locating a file being transferred, without seeking a CPLR 2004 extension, so vacatur was improvidently granted.
- [Astoria Wellness Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52008(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/astoria-wellness-med-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op52008u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-11-17 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the insurer's law office failure excuse unreasonable because it did not adequately explain why it failed to re-file its opposition papers in the correct part after the clerk notified it of the filing error.
- [Craniofacial Pain Mgt. v MVAIC (2010 NY Slip Op 51843(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/craniofacial-pain-mgt-v-mvaic-2010-ny-slip-op-51843u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-10-20 — No meritorious defense [also decides]: Held that, besides being untimely under the one-year limit, MVAIC's motion failed because its Insurance Law § 5214 defense lacked merit, making it unnecessary to consider its excuse.
- [Friendly Physician, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51772(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/friendly-physician-p-c-v-geico-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op-51772u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-10-05 — Default excused [central]: Held the insurer's late opposition excused because its attorneys' affirmations gave a detailed evidentiary account of law office failure, and its claims employee's affidavit showed timely mailed denials based on peer review and IMEs, a meritorious defense.
- [A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 20416)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-m-med-servs-p-c-v-liberty-mut-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op-20416/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-10-05 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held that an intrinsic-fraud motion under CPLR 5015 (a) (3) required a reasonable excuse, and the attorney's affirmation lacking personal knowledge of the law office failure did not supply one, so vacatur was improvident.
- [Stoessel v Allstate Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51245(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/stoessel-v-allstate-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op-51245u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-07-16 — Neither shown [central]: Affirmed denial of the insurer's motion to vacate a commercial claims default judgment for the reasons of its companion decision, which held the insurer's conclusory denial of service showed neither a reasonable excuse nor a meritorious defense.
- [Stoessel v Allstate Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51244(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/stoessel-v-allstate-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op-51244u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-07-16 — Neither shown [central]: Held the insurer's conclusory denial did not rebut the presumed receipt of the commercial claims notice, and it failed to show a reasonable excuse and meritorious defense, so denial of vacatur was affirmed.
- [Mani Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51185(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/mani-med-p-c-v-american-tr-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op-51185u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-07-07 — Default excused [central]: Affirmed vacatur of the default summary judgment because the insurer's affirmations showed a reasonable excuse for not opposing and its employee showing supplied an arguably meritorious workers' compensation defense.
- [Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50597(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/delta-diagnostic-radiology-p-c-v-liberty-mut-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op50597u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-04-02 — Default excused [central]: Upheld vacatur because the insurer's attorney's affirmation gave a detailed explanation of the oversight causing its nonappearance, and its claims specialist's affidavit showed timely mailed denials and verification requests, a meritorious defense.
- [Manhattan Med. Imaging, P.C. v Nationwide Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50584(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/manhattan-med-imaging-p-c-v-nationwide-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op50584u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-03-31 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the insurer's law office failure excuse for its untimely opposition disingenuous and insufficient to justify the default, so vacatur of the summary judgment orders entered on default was properly denied.
- [Nursing Personnel Homecare v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50450(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/nursing-personnel-homecare-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op50450u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-03-10 — Default excused [central]: Held the insurer showed under CPLR 317 that it did not receive actual notice in time to defend, through a litigation examiner's detailed mail-procedure affidavit, and a meritorious defense that the policy was cancelled before the accident.
- [SZ Med., P.C. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 20044)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/sz-med-p-c-v-lumbermens-mut-cas-co-2010-ny-slip-op-20044/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-02-05 — Neither shown [central]: Held the insurer showed no reasonable excuse, lacking a personal-knowledge affidavit and having waited months after notice until judgment was entered (an intentional default), and no meritorious defense, since its checks were void and overbilling was not timely denied.
- [A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (2009 NY Slip Op 52363(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-motor-veh-acc-indem-corp-2009-ny-slip-op-52363u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2009-08-31 — No meritorious defense [central]: Reversed vacatur because MVAIC's Insurance Law § 5214 argument did not bar a default judgment and its moving papers showed no meritorious defense, the belated reply showing being disregarded, so the excuse need not be reached.
- [Urban Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51734(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/urban-radiology-p-c-v-american-tr-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op51734u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2009-07-31 — Default excused [central]: Held the insurer's default excused because its claims supervisor swore the file with the summons was lost and it moved promptly, and timely peer-review denials showed a meritorious defense to one assignor's claim.
- [Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51571(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/great-wall-acupuncture-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op51571u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2009-07-14 — Default excused [central]: Held the claims representatives' affidavits a reasonable excuse for the insurer's relatively short, non-prejudicial delay in answering, and the insurer showed a potentially meritorious Mallela ineligibility defense, so vacatur and the late answer were granted.
- [J.O. Dedicated Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51089(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/j-o-dedicated-med-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op51089u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2009-05-28 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held counsel's bare statement that the summons was not timely processed due to clerical inadvertence was no reasonable excuse for the insurer's late answer, so relief was denied without reaching the meritorious defense.
- [V.S. Med. Servs., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 29226)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/v-s-med-servs-p-c-v-travelers-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-29226/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2009-05-19 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Held the plaintiff provider's motion to vacate the dismissal entered on its default at trial properly denied because counsel's conclusory claim that the office failed to calendar the trial date was not a reasonable excuse.
- [Acupuncture Healthcare Plaza, P.C. v Zurich Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 52585(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/acupuncture-healthcare-plaza-p-c-v-zurich-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op52585u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2008-12-31 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Reversed vacatur of the order granting summary judgment on the provider's default because counsel's conclusory, undetailed, uncorroborated law office failure claim was no reasonable excuse for not opposing or appearing.
- [Psychology Ym, P.C. v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 52208(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/psychology-ym-p-c-v-hartford-acc-indem-co-2008-ny-slip-op-52208u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2008-10-30 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Denied vacatur because defense counsel's conclusory affirmation, not based on personal knowledge, that the carrier delayed forwarding the summons due to complaint volume was no reasonable excuse; the motion was also not made expeditiously.
- [Neurology & Acupuncture Serv., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51755(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/neurology-acupuncture-serv-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2008-nyslip-op-51755u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2008-08-19 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Reversed vacatur of the default judgment because the insurer's only excuse came from its attorney, who did not allege personal knowledge of the asserted facts.
- [Ave T MPC Corp. v Chubb Indem. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51681(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ave-t-mpc-corp-v-chubb-indem-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op-51681u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2008-07-30 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Reversed the order vacating the default judgment and compelling acceptance of a late answer, because counsel's bare claim of law office failure and carrier delay, not based on personal knowledge, was no reasonable excuse.
- [Midwood Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51551(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/midwood-acupuncture-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op51551u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2008-07-10 — Default excused [central]: Granted the insurer's motion to vacate the default judgment and extend its time to appear because its special investigator's affidavit raised issues about who actually controlled the provider, a meritorious defense.
- [City Wide Social Work & Psychological Servs., P.L.L.C. v State-Wide Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50909(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/city-wide-social-work-psychological-servs-p-l-l-c-v-state-wide-ins-co-2008ny-slip-op-50909u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2008-04-25 — No meritorious defense [central]: Reversed vacatur of the judgment entered on the insurer's failure to oppose summary judgment because it did not show its defenses were in timely denials or were non-precludable.
- [Stracar Med. Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50277(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/stracar-med-servs-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op50277u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2008-02-06 — Neither shown [central]: Reversed vacatur because the insurer did not show timely mailed denials preserving its defenses, and its claims representative's unilateral assumption of an extension from an unanswered faxed stipulation was no reasonable excuse.
- [IVB Med. Supply, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50623(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ivb-med-supply-inc-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-50623u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2007-03-26 — No reasonable excuse [also decides]: Held that the provider could not vacate the order compelling a deposition granted on its default because it offered no reasonable excuse for failing to oppose the cross motion.
- [Nyack Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52233(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/nyack-hosp-v-allstate-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-52233u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-10-27 — No meritorious defense [central]: Held that although the insurer showed under CPLR 317 it lacked actual notice in time to defend, it had no meritorious defense because its denial for a missing application form was meritless where a hospital facility form sufficed.
- [Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51195(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ocean-diagnostic-imaging-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-51195u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-06-22 — Default excused [central]: Upheld vacatur of the default judgment, finding no basis to disturb the finding that the insurer established both a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious defense.
- [A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Specialty Natl. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 50810(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-specialty-natl-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-50810u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-04-28 — Default excused [central]: Held the insurer's default in answering excused, given the Superintendent of Insurance's initial delay in forwarding process and a showing of a meritorious defense, and allowed it to serve its answer.
- [Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 50581(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ocean-diagnostic-imaging-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-50581u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-04-06 — Default excused [central]: Upheld vacatur of the default judgment, finding no basis to disturb the finding that the insurer established both a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious defense.
- [A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 50243(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-allstate-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-50243u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-02-14 — Neither shown [central]: Reversed vacatur because the insurer offered no affidavit from anyone with personal knowledge of the misrouted pleadings, and its defense rested only on conclusory denial forms without proof that examination-under-oath requests were made or mailed.
- [SZ Med. P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 50746(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/sz-med-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2005-nyslipop-50746u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-05-19 — Default excused [central]: Upheld vacatur of the default judgment against the insurer, finding on the totality of the circumstances no improvident exercise of the motion court's discretion.
- [SZ Med. P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 50745(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/sz-med-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2005-nyslipop-50745u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-05-19 — Default excused [central]: Upheld vacatur of the default judgment against the insurer, finding on the totality of the circumstances no improvident exercise of the motion court's discretion.
- [King's Med. Supply Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 51550(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/kings-med-supply-inc-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2004-ny-slip-op-51550u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2004-12-08 — No meritorious defense [central]: Reversed vacatur of the summary judgment entered on the insurer's default because its only defense, IME nonappearance after a single request without follow-up, was invalid and otherwise precluded, so no meritorious defense was shown.
- [A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Travelers Prop. Cas. Corp. (2004 NY Slip Op 24481)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-travelers-prop-cas-corp-2004-ny-slip-op-24481/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2004-12-01 — No reasonable excuse [central]: Denied the insurer's cross motion to open its default because its failure to alert counsel, three months' neglect of the complaint, disregard of the default notice and unexplained delay in moving were an insufficient excuse.
- [Amaze Med. Supply, Inc. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 51110(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/amaze-med-supply-inc-v-lumbermens-mut-cas-co-2004-ny-slip-op-51110u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2004-10-01 — No meritorious defense [central]: Assuming a reasonable excuse, held the insurer showed no meritorious defense because it offered no admissible proof of a timely verification request and no affidavit from someone with personal knowledge supporting lack of medical necessity.
- [Amaze Med. Supply v Allstate Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 50263(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/amaze-med-supply-v-allstate-ins-co-2004-ny-slip-op-50263u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2004-04-09 — Neither shown [central]: Reversed vacatur of the default judgment because the employee's affidavit gave no evidentiary details of the claimed extension request and the asserted peer-review denial was conclusory, so neither excuse nor meritorious defense was shown.
- [Rockaway Blvd. Med., P.C. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Corp. (2003 NY Slip Op 51405(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/rockaway-blvd-med-p-c-v-travelers-prop-cas-corp-2003-ny-slip-op-51405u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2003-10-21 — Neither shown [central]: Denied the insurer's motion to compel acceptance of its late answer because counsel's affirmation lacked personal knowledge of the delay in forwarding the summons, the extension stipulation was unsigned, and no affidavit of merit was submitted.

### Trial courts in the First Department

- [Hertz Vehs., LLC v Ace Med Supplies Inc. (2025 NY Slip Op 51959(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/hertz-vehs-llc-v-ace-med-supplies-inc-2025-ny-slip-op-51959u/) — Supreme Court, New York County, 2025-10-07 — No meritorious defense [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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/liberty-mut-ins-co-v-carranza-2021-ny-slip-op-50284u/) — Supreme Court, New York County, 2021-04-07 — Default excused [central]: Compelled 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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/allstate-ins-co-v-dhd-med-p-c-2021-ny-slip-op-50011u/) — Supreme Court, New York County, 2021-01-08 — Default excused [central]: Compelled 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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-sky-limit-physical-therapy-p-c-2020-ny-slip-op50558u/) — Supreme Court, New York County, 2020-05-13 — Neither shown [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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/liberty-mut-ins-co-v-martin-2020-ny-slip-op-50511u/) — Supreme Court, New York County, 2020-05-04 — Default excused [central]: Extended 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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/chubb-ins-co-v-geico-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op-51985u/) — Supreme Court, New York County, 2008-09-29 — Neither shown [central]: Held 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

- [JPM Physical Therapy, P.C. v Foremost Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 50089(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/jpm-physical-therapy-p-c-v-foremost-prop-cas-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op-50089u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2026-01-27 — Default excused [central]: Compelled 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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/prompt-med-supply-inc-v-metropolitan-gen-ins-co-2024-ny-slip-op-50654u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2024-05-31 — Default excused [central]: Held 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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/kalitenko-v-integon-natl-ins-co-2023-ny-slip-op-50218u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, 2023-03-20 — No reasonable excuse [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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ema-acupuncture-p-c-v-progressive-ins-co-2011-ny-slip-op-50396u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2011-03-15 — No reasonable excuse [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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/westchester-med-ctr-v-allstate-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-50511u/) — Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2009-03-25 — Default excused [central]: Vacated 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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/alpha-health-care-plus-med-v-progressive-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op52209u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2007-11-23 — Default excused [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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/deajess-med-imaging-p-c-v-state-farm-fire-cas-co-2006-ny-slip-op-51281u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2006-06-28 — Default excused [central]: Compelled 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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/lefferts-med-inc-v-lumbermens-mut-cas-co-2006-ny-slip-op-51136u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2006-06-20 — Neither shown [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.
- [Aurora Chiropractic, P.C. v Farm & Cas. Ins. Co. of Ct. (2004 NY Slip Op 51066(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/aurora-chiropractic-p-c-v-farm-cas-ins-co-of-ct-2004-ny-slip-op-51066u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2004-09-23 — No meritorious defense [central]: Accepted the insurer's index-number excuse given no intent to default and prompt motion, but denied vacatur because its medical-necessity defense was precluded for lack of timely denials sent to the providers.