Late responses in lawsuit, how to forestall the court from allowing it
<p>In the jurisdiction of the state of New York, a lawsuit demanding payment for a debt must be responded to within 20 days of the defendant being personally served. I assume this is a statutory limit, but have not actually checked the law myself.</p>
<p>However, <a href="https://www.solosuit.com/posts/17#:%7E:text=New%20York%20Deadline%20for%20Answering,delivered%20in%20any%20other%20way." rel="noreferrer">I have read in various places</a> that courts in New York routinely allow defendants to break this limit and respond to such lawsuits late.</p>
<p>I have a case in which the defendant is an experienced businessman with high powered legal representation, yet he responded 17 days late. How can I forestall the court accepting this late response? In other words, I will petition the court for a default judgement on the grounds that no response was made within the statutory time limit. I am afraid the court might deny my petition. I don't understand how the court can do this in the case of a legally experienced defendant. If it was a consumer defendant, the court might say the defendant is naive and deserves the benefit of the doubt, but that is not the case here.</p>
<p>How can I forestall the possibility that the court goes against the law in this way, and if it does, how is it appealed?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>he responded 17 days late. How can I forestall the court accepting this late response?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Your chances are very slim if the defendant &quot;<em>provide[s] a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate[s] a potentially meritorious defense to the action</em>&quot;. <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/inadvnyco120918000213" rel="noreferrer"><em>Wells Fargo Bank v. Chateau</em>, 36 Misc.3d 280-281 (2012)</a> (brackets added, citations omitted). The extent of the delay is listed among the relevant factors in the &quot;<em>discretionary, sui generis determination to be made by the court</em>&quot; of whether the excuse is reasonable, <em>Id</em>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/innyco20131204297" rel="noreferrer"><em>EHS Quickstops Corp. v. GRJH, Inc.</em>, 112 A.D.3d 577, 578 (2013)</a> explains that motions for default judgment are denied by virtue &quot;<em>of the lack of prejudice to the plaintiffs resulting from the short delay in serving an answer, the lack of willfulness on the part of the defendant, the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, and the public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits</em>&quot;.</p>
<p>In the absence of further context, the sole delay of 17 days seems unlikely to outweigh the aforementioned criteria.</p>

<p>Trial courts generally have extremely wide latitude in managing their dockets, so you can <em>ask</em> the court to disallow the filing, but you're not on very strong grounds, legally. Regardless of the opposing party's savvy or resources, the court can simply rely on the principle that cases ought to be decided on their merits. If you appeal the decision to permit the filing, you will almost certainly lose.</p>
<p>And of course, the court could easily say nearly the same thing about you. Once the opposing party was in default, you should have moved for default judgment immediately, but you sat and waited for weeks instead. Why should the court permit you to move for default judgment now, especially now that the defendant is no longer in default.</p>

new-york-state time-periods