In Commissioners of the State Ins. Fund v. Ramos , Manuel Ramos claimed he didn't have to pay what he owed to the State Insurance Fund (SIF) because of "laches" -- that is, the Fund had waited too long to enforce a judgment it got against him back in 1997.
Ironically, the New York County Supreme Court disregarded Ramos's argument on technical grounds because his papers failed to give any supporting facts. He was also denied an opportunity to amend his answer to elaborate upon his claim.
When he took his case to the Appellate Division, First Department, Ramos got zonked yet again. This time the court found that whether or not the lower court had made an error by denying him leave to amend wasn't properly before the AD1. And, it further noted, that the "laches" defense wasn't a very good one.
How unappealing!
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Commissioners of the State Ins. Fund v. Ramos