On occasion, we examine procedural matters that have an impact on the substantive rights of the parties. In Richardson v. Beal, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 32804(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County July 24, 2025) (here), the procedural matter at issue concerned the date on which a filing is deemed to be filed. As discussed below, the date on which a filing is deemed filed might surprise you.
Overview
In Richardson v. Beal, plaintiffs sought a default judgment against defendant, alleging that he failed to respond to their complaint in a timely manner. Plaintiffs served the summons and complaint on defendant in September 2023, with service deemed complete by October 12, 2023. Defendant did not file an answer by the November 12, 2023 deadline. Although he attempted to file a motion to dismiss in October, it was rejected by the clerk’s office due to procedural errors and not refiled until December 21, 2023.
The motion court determined that the December filing was the only valid response, and thus defendant had defaulted in November 2023. Under CPLR 3215(c), plaintiffs were required to seek a default judgment within one year of the default. Their motion, filed in January 2025, exceeded this deadline. The motion court held that plaintiffs failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay or demonstrate a meritorious cause of action, both of which are required to excuse late filings under CPLR 3215(c). Consequently, the motion court denied plaintiffs’ motion and granted defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss the complaint, ruling the case was abandoned under CPLR 3215(c).
Factual Background
Plaintiffs brought the underlying action on August 23, 2023. According to the affidavit of service, on September 16, 2023, plaintiffs served the summons and complaint on defendant by means other than personal service. Proof of service was filed with the Clerk of the Court on October 2, 2023.
Pursuant to CPLR 308(4), service was complete ten (10) days after such filing, on October 12, 2023. The time to answer the complaint expired on November 12, 2023. Defendant failed to file an answer within thirty (30) days after service was complete as required under CPLR 3012(c).
According to NYSCEF,[1] defendant, acting pro se, attempted to file, albeit late, a notice of motion on October 30, 2023. The Clerk rejected the filing and deleted the document from NYSCEF and returned the motion to defendant. On December 21, 2023, Defendant refiled the motion to dismiss the complaint, alleging improper service in a single sentence without any further explanation. The notice of motion was notarized and dated December 21, 2023. The motion was successfully filed. On January 29, 2024, the Court denied defendant’s motion for failure to provide an explanation for how service was improper.
The Motion Court’s Decision
On January 29, 2025, plaintiffs moved, pursuant to CPLR 3215, for a default judgment. Defendant, through his attorney, opposed the motion and cross-moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c).
CLPR 3215(a) permits a plaintiff to seek a default judgment against a defendant who has failed to respond to a pleading. Pursuant to CLPR 3215(f), a defendant may extend their time to serve a pleading responsive to a complaint by serving a “a notice of motion … [which] extends the time to serve the pleading until ten days after service of notice of entry of the order.” However, the defendant must complete service of the notice of motion before “service of the responsive pleading is required”.[2]
If the defendant does not move before service of the responsive pleading is required, the plaintiff must move for the entry of a default judgment within “one year after the default.”[3] If the plaintiff fails to take such timely proceedings, CLPR 3215(c) provides that “the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative, or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.”[4]
The one-year time limit for seeking a default judgment begins to run at the time of a defendant’s default.[5] If a plaintiff fails to seek a default judgment within the one-year window, then they must “set forth a viable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a meritorious cause of action”, or dismissal of the underlying action is mandatory.[6]
In seeking the motion for a default judgment, plaintiffs argued that the notice of motion was filed in October, when according to NYSCEF, the notice of motion was filed and then rejected and returned. Defendant opposed the motion on the grounds that it was untimely. Defendant maintained that the motion to dismiss was not successfully filed until December, and, therefore, it did not extend the time for plaintiffs to move for a default judgment.
The issue before the motion court was “whether an unsuccessful attempt at filing is considered a response to the complaint, or whether Defendant did not respond to the complaint until his notice of motion was successfully filed and accepted by the Clerk.”[7] The motion court held “that Defendant’s notice of motion was filed in December, not October.”[8]
The motion court noted that there were a number of “[i]mportant factors” that supported its decision, including “the fact that the notice of motion … [was] notarized and dated in December, and … that whatever document that was attempted to be filed in October was not available on NYSCEF during the gap between October and December.”[9] The motion court explained that the “only response by Defendant to the complaint was clearly dated and filed in December, and it was this response that the Plaintiffs and the Court responded to when deciding the motion to dismiss.”[10]
The motion court also found support in the NYSCEF confirmation notice for the notice of motion that was filed in December. According to the confirmation notice, the “NYSCEF website ha[d] received an electronic filing on 12/21/2023 04:44 PM” and advised that the recipient should “keep [the] notice as a confirmation of this filing.”[11] The comments on NYSCEF concerning the filing on October 30, 2023, said the motion court, confirmed that the notice of motion was filed but that it was rejected because of a “‘missing or incorrect return date and no place of return.’”[12]
Based upon the foregoing, the motion found that “the Clerk rejected the first attempt at filing the notice of the motion to dismiss for a failure to comport with local rules. This mean[t] that the purported filing on October 30, 2023, was not “deemed filed” in accordance with CPLR 2102(b).[13] Therefore, concluded the motion court, defendant “defaulted in November of 2023 by failing to respond to the complaint, and therefore the present motion was not brought within the statutory one-year period after a default.”[14]
The motion court also held that plaintiffs failed to provide a reasonable excuse for their failure to timely seek a default judgment.[15] The motion court explained that “[i]n their papers and at oral argument on the motion, Plaintiffs insist[ed] that the present motion [was] timely and that this “render[ed] it unnecessary to establish a reasonable excuse for delay.”[16] “Because Plaintiffs [had] failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for the delay,” concluded the motion court, it was bound by CPLR 3215(c) to grant the cross-motion to dismiss the complaint.[17]
Takeaway
There are a number of lessons that can be learned from the motion court’s decision in Richardson. First, timeliness is critical when seeking a default judgment. Under CPLR 3215(c), plaintiffs must seek a default judgment within one year of the defendant’s default. As shown in Richardson, the failure to do so—without a valid excuse—will result in a mandatory dismissal of the complaint as abandoned.
Second, filings must comply with court rules to be considered filed. Defendant’s initial attempt to file his motion to dismiss in October 2023 was rejected by the Clerk due to procedural errors. Under CPLR 2102(b), the filing did not count as a valid filing because it did not meet the filing standards necessary to be “deemed filed.”
Finally, plaintiffs bear the burden of justifying any delay in meeting the one-year deadline. As explained by the motion court in Richardson, a plaintiff can excuse the failure to file a default judgment motion within one year of the default by providing a reasonable excuse for the delay and showing that the underlying claim is meritorious. As shown in Richardson, the plaintiff must meet both requirements.
[1] NYSCEF stands for the New York State Courts Electronic Filing System. It is a system that allows for the electronic filing and serving of legal documents in various New York State courts. This includes the Surrogate’s Court, Supreme Court, and the Court of Claims (here). NYSCEF enables attorneys and other authorized users to file documents, manage cases, and access court information electronically.
[2] CPLR 3211(e).
[3] CLPR 3215(c).
[4] Id.
[5] CPLR 3215(c); see also IMP Plumbing & Heating Corp., v. 317 E. 34th St., LLC, 89 A.D.3d 593, 594 (1st Dept. 2011); PM OK Assocs. v. Britz, 256 A.D.2d 151, 152 (1st Dept. 1998) (holding that “a complaint shall not be dismissed as abandoned, pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), unless a plaintiff has failed to take proceedings for entry of a default judgment against the defendant within one year after the default”).
[6] Hoppenfeld v. Hoppenfeld, 220 A.D.2d 302, 303 (1st Dept. 1995).
[7] Slip Op. at *3 (orig’l emphasis).
[8] Id.
[9] Id. at *3-*4.
[10] Id. at *4.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Under CPLR 2102(b), “[a] paper filed in accordance with the rules of the chief administrator or any local rule or practice established by the court shall be deemed filed.”
[14] Slip Op. at *4.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id. at *4-*5.
