Court Excuses Ten-Month Delay In Answering Crossclaims Despite Law Office Failure

On December 19, 2024, Justice Joel M. Cohen denied a motion for an order entering default against a crossclaim-defendant and allowed that party an extension of time to answer despite a ten-month delay in responding to the pleading. In Mehrnaz Nancy Homapour, et al., v. 3M Properties, LLC, et al., Index No. 653795/2015, three defendants filed crossclaims against a fellow defendant, Jacob Harounian, as part of an amended answer. Harounian’s attorney did not notice the addition of this crossclaim because the remainder of the answer was nearly identical to prior answers filed by the three parties. After ten months had elapsed, the crossclaim-plaintiffs moved for default.

The Court declined to enter default despite the extensive delay. It explained:

While the length of delay was not insubstantial (approximately 10 months), Jacob’s default was not prejudicial. Fact discovery was completed when the third Answer was filed, and Crossclaim-Plaintiffs did not raise the issue of Jacob’s default until serving the Notice of Motion nearly 10 months after Jacob’s reply was due. . . . Further, as discussed above, the cross-claims remained nearly identical to the ones previously asserted. Nor is Jacob’s opposition to the instant motion and participation in this nearly decade-old litigation consistent with a pattern of willful and dilatory behavior.

Although the litigant here avoided default, the decision highlights the importance of counsel carefully reviewing all pleadings and amendments. The attorneys at Schlam Stone & Dolan frequently counsel clients concerning pleading and answering complaints. Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning such issues.