Responding to a Complaint: Tips for Drafting Answers
In her Litigation 101 column, Shira Forman provides guidelines and strategies for drafting an answer that will serve your client well as litigation moves forward.
June 30, 2017 at 12:00 AM
11 minute read
Your client has been sued, and the summons and complaint that initiated the lawsuit have landed on your desk. After considering and ruling out some of the possible next steps—a motion to dismiss, removal, and jurisdictional objections, to name a few—the task at hand is to file a strong and thorough answer to the complaint. Here are some guidelines and strategies for drafting an answer that will serve your client well as the case moves forward.
Calculate Time to Respond
The first thing to do upon receiving a summons and complaint is to note the date on which the client was served. In a New York state court case, the answer must be filed within 20 days of personal service of the complaint, or within 30 days of the time when service by any other means is effective. In federal court, in most cases, a defendant must respond within 21 days after service of the complaint. (Consult the applicable rules for guidance on how to obtain, if necessary, an extension of time to answer the complaint.)
Is Defendant Named Correctly?
Complaints often name the wrong defendants. In the case of a corporate defendant, a complaint may erroneously list a “D/B/A” name instead of the defendant's registered legal name or name a parent company instead of a subsidiary, or vice versa. Regardless of who is named as a defendant, you should make sure to enter an appearance and answer only on behalf of the proper individual or legal entity. The New York Secretary of State website has a corporation database which is a good resource for ascertaining correct legal names of businesses and other helpful information about the parties.
Do Your Research
As with drafting a complaint, it is important to gather as much information as possible before you get started. Review each allegation with your client and determine whether there are witnesses or documents that either support or contradict the facts alleged. Explore whether there are facts that give rise to affirmative defenses or counterclaims. Although you have the option of asserting a general denial, courts look more favorably upon answers with specific admissions and denials, as it is rare that a complaint will contain no facts which can be admitted.
Respond to the Allegations
The crux of the answer is the defendant's numbered statements admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint. For each numbered allegation in the complaint, state clearly whether the defendant admits or denies the allegation. Any allegation that is not responded to will be considered admitted.
An allegation can be admitted in part and denied in part, but be sure to specify which part of the allegation is admitted and which is denied. For example: “Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, except Defendant admits that he began working for the Plaintiff in May 2005.”
CPLR 3018(a) requires that, for each denial, the defendant must assert whether the denial is based on the defendant's knowledge, on defendant's information or belief, or on lack of sufficient knowledge and information. Denial based on lack of sufficient knowledge or information should not be pled in connection with an allegation that is a matter of public record. When appropriate, you can also answer that a particular allegation calls for a conclusion of law for which no response is required.
Plead Affirmative Defenses
After responding to the plaintiff's allegations, the defendant has the opportunity to raise any available affirmative defenses—defenses that, if successful, will defeat the plaintiff's claim even if the allegations in the complaint are determined to be true. CPRL 3018 describes affirmative defenses as “matters which if not pleaded would be likely to take the adverse party by surprise or would raise issues of fact not appearing on the face of a prior pleading.” CPLR 3018 also offers a helpful (but not exclusive) list of possible affirmative defenses: “arbitration and award, collateral estoppel, culpable conduct claimed in diminution of damages as set forth in article 14-A, discharge in bankruptcy, facts showing illegality either by statute or common law, fraud, infancy or other disability of the party defending, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, and statute of limitation.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDecision of the Day: Court Rules on Judgment Motions Over Police Killing of Pet Dog While Executing Warrant
A Primer on Using Third-Party Depositions To Prove Your Case at Trial
13 minute readDecision of the Day: Judge Dismisses Defamation Suit by New York Philharmonic Oboist Accused of Sexual Misconduct
Court of Appeals Provides Comfort to Land Use Litigants Through the Relation Back Doctrine
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Public Notices/Calendars
- 2Wednesday Newspaper
- 3Decision of the Day: Qui Tam Relators Do Not Plausibly Claim Firm Avoided Tax Obligations Through Visa Applications, Circuit Finds
- 4Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-116
- 5Big Law Firms Sheppard Mullin, Morgan Lewis and Baker Botts Add Partners in Houston
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250