EXTRA! EXTRA! ... HAVE WE GOT SOMES NEWS FOR YOU ….
When plaintiff "D" moved for a default judgment against the NY Post, the New York County Supreme Court denied the request and spontaneously dismissed the case based on improper service of the pleadings.
When an appeal was later filed, the Appellate Division, First Department, thought that while the judge was correct in denying the entry of a default judgment, it thought that the litigation shouldn't have been dismissed, particularly in the absence of a formal motion by a party seeking such relief. (It characterized a “sua sponte” dismissal as a power that should be used “sparingly and only in extraordinary circumstances,” which weren't present here.)
Interestingly, the AD1 also indicated that it was inappropriate for the judge to conclude that the case was time-barred. A “statute of limitations” defense must be affirmatively asserted by a party, and may not be used by a court as the basis to deny a default judgment.
As a result, the AD1 modified the outcome, by reinstating the complaint and allowing the Post 30 days to file a response to the case.
Was that bad news for the paper?
# # #
DECISION