Prokos v. American Managed IT Services Inc.
- Rochon
- 1:25-cv-04638
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Prokos v. American Managed IT Services, Judge Rochon held the court could not appoint corporate counsel and extended Defendant’s response deadline to August 18, 2025.
American Managed IT Services Inc., which received additional time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, and Andrew Prokos, whose case deadline was extended.
What happened
In Prokos v. American Managed IT Services Inc., the company did not respond to Andrew Prokos’s complaint by the original deadline or by an earlier extension. The company’s chief executive officer told the court that it had tried but could not afford to hire a lawyer and asked for appointed counsel and more time.
The court explained that it cannot appoint a lawyer for a corporation. It also reminded the company that a corporation must appear through an attorney and that repeated failure to do so could lead to a default judgment. Because the company was looking for counsel and the parties were discussing settlement, the court gave it another extension.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered the company to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by August 18, 2025. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket 13.
The detailed version
- Prokos v. American Managed IT Services Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-04638
- Rochon
- July 29, 2025
Background
Andrew Prokos filed the action on June 3,
- American Managed IT Services Inc. was served through the New York Secretary of State on June 17,
- Its deadline to answer was July 8, 2025, and the court later granted a courtesy extension through July 18,
- The company had not answered, otherwise responded to the complaint, or entered an appearance.
Requests by the Parties
On July 21, 2025, the company’s chief executive officer, Mark Angelisanti, informed the court that the company had tried to obtain legal representation but had been unable to retain an attorney it could afford. He asked the court to appoint pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer provided without charge, and to continue the case to allow time to obtain counsel. On July 24, 2025, Prokos’s counsel reported that the parties were engaging in settlement discussions and requested an extension of the company’s deadline to respond.
Court’s Ruling
The court stated that it was not authorized to appoint counsel for a corporation because the appointment provision cited in the order applies only to natural persons. The court noted that the company might be able to obtain guidance or a referral from the City Bar Justice Center.
The court also reminded American Managed IT Services Inc. that a corporation may not appear in a lawsuit except through an attorney. It warned that a corporation’s repeated failure to appear through counsel may result in a default judgment, which is a judgment entered after a party fails to defend the case.
In light of the company’s effort to find counsel and Prokos’s representation that settlement discussions were underway, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted the company an additional extension. The order requires the company to file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint no later than August 18, 2025. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket 13. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.