A pro se plaintiff who brought a malpractice action against his former Manhattan employment lawyer failed to show a reasonable excuse for defaulting on that lawyer’s motion to dismiss where he relied on his “optimistic belief that the court would grant his eleventh hour request for an extension of time” to file opposition papers, an appeals court has ruled.

An Appellate Division, First Department panel has also found that the lower court’s denial of plaintiff Bijan Karimian’s request for a time extension was proper because Karimian’s “proffered excuse” for waiting until the last minute to request the extension—that he thought the opposition-papers deadline had been indefinitely postponed pending his motion to seal the court file—was “belied by the record.”

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]