Practice point: Pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), "[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned . . . unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed." The language of CPLR 3215(c) is not, in the first instance, discretionary, but mandatory. In order to establish sufficient cause, the plaintiff must proffer a reasonable excuse for the delay in timely moving for a default judgment and demonstrate that the cause of action is potentially meritorious.
Application: Initially, contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, it was not precluded from considering the defendant's cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her as abandoned pursuant to the doctrine of law of the case. The order dated January 3, 2019, did not resolve on the merits whether the plaintiff abandoned the action pursuant to CPLR 3215(c). Further, the plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for its lengthy delay in seeking a default judgment. The plaintiff's conclusory and unsubstantiated assertions that periods of delay were attributable to "loss mitigation discussions with [the] Borrower," compliance with a then newly-issued administrative order, and a change in counsel were insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse. Since the plaintiff failed to set forth a reasonable excuse, the Appellate Division need not determine whether it asserted a potentially meritorious cause of action.
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. vs. Faies, NY Slip Op 05767 (2d Dep't October 7, 2026)
