Cost of Delay Modeler Guide for New York

What this calculator does

Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Cost Of Delay calculator.

DocketMath’s Cost of Delay Modeler (tool slug: cost-of-delay) helps you estimate the financial impact of waiting—i.e., the cost associated with delay—by converting time and risk assumptions into a structured model you can use in New York-focused case planning and documentation.

For New York, the tool includes a built-in reference point for a general statute of limitations (SOL) horizon of 5 years grounded in the Criminal Procedure Law:

• General SOL period (New York): 5 years
• Cited authority: N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 30.10(2)(c)
  Source: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/30.10

At a high level, the model typically lets you think in terms of:

• Delay duration (how long the timeline moves)
• Cost per unit time (money, fees, staffing hours, or quantified impacts)
• Probability-weighted factors (likelihood of adverse outcomes if you delay)
• Total “cost of delay” over the modeled horizon

Even if you’re not doing litigation-budget math, the output can be useful for:

• internal case triage,
• settlement-decision narratives,
• resource allocation memos,
• timeline pressure comparisons.

What the output usually answers

Use the model to estimate questions like:

• “If we move from a 9-month to a 21-month timeline, what’s the added cost?”
• “At what delay threshold does the projected cost exceed a decision-maker’s comfort level?”
• “How sensitive are costs to probability assumptions?”

You can access the tool here: /tools/cost-of-delay

When to use it

This guide is designed for situations where delay is not just administrative—it creates measurable consequences. Consider using DocketMath’s Cost of Delay Modeler when you have time-based decision points and want a repeatable, auditable way to quantify impact.

Best-fit use cases in New York workflows

Check the boxes that match your context:

When to be cautious

• If your matter is governed by a non-default limitations rule, or if a specific charge/claim category changes the SOL analysis, the general 5-year horizon may not match your actual constraints. In that scenario, treat the model as a cost-of-delay framework, not a definitive legal timing tool.

Legal disclaimer (gentle, practical)

This guide focuses on quantifying delay impact. It does not provide legal advice or replace a case-specific SOL assessment. Use the model outputs as an internal decision-support tool, and validate legal timing issues through appropriate case review.

Step-by-step example

Below is a concrete walkthrough you can mirror inside DocketMath. The goal is to show how inputs affect outputs—especially how a shift in time horizon changes the computed “cost of delay.”

Scenario: Compare two timeline plans over a New York baseline horizon

Assume your team is modeling costs over a period that references the general 5-year SOL horizon under N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 30.10(2)(c). (Again: this is the general/default period, not a claim-type-specific rule.)

You’re comparing:

• Plan A: Delay of 12 months before a key milestone
• Plan B: Delay of 30 months before a key milestone

You estimate the economic impact of delay at $8,000 per month in combined costs (staff time, overhead, and other quantifiable effects). You also factor in a probability-weighted risk multiplier to reflect that longer delay increases the chance of an unfavorable outcome.

For the example:

• Monthly cost rate: $8,000/month
• Risk multiplier factor:

  • Plan A: 1.00 (baseline risk weighting)
  • Plan B: 1.18 (higher risk weighting due to longer delay)

Step 1: Set the model horizon reference (New York baseline)

In your notes, anchor the timeline comparison to the general 5-year period:

• 5 years referenced via **N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 30.10(2)(c)

This doesn’t mean every case must use the full 5 years; rather, it gives you a documented baseline horizon consistent with the default SOL reference.

Step 2: Enter Plan A inputs

Compute total months of delay:

• Plan A delay = 12 months

Compute Plan A cost:

• Base cost = 12 × $8,000 = $96,000
• Risk-adjusted cost = $96,000 × 1.00 = $96,000

Step 3: Enter Plan B inputs

Compute total months of delay:

• Plan B delay = 30 months

Compute Plan B cost:

• Base cost = 30 × $8,000 = $240,000
• Risk-adjusted cost = $240,000 × 1.18 = $283,200

Step 4: Compare results

Difference (Plan B minus Plan A):

• $283,200 − $96,000 = $187,200

So, in this example, the model shows the cost of additional delay is about $187,200 under your assumptions.

Step 5: Document the sensitivity (so the model can be defended)

A defensible model includes a quick check like:

• If monthly cost rate were $6,500 instead of $8,000:

  • Plan A: 12 × 6,500 × 1.00 = $78,000
  • Plan B: 30 × 6,500 × 1.18 = $230,100
  • Difference = $152,100

That shows the conclusion (Plan B costs more) remains consistent, while the magnitude shifts based on cost-rate assumptions.

Example inputs/outputs summary table

Common scenarios

Different organizations use cost-of-delay models for different reasons. Here are common New York-oriented scenarios where the model logic tends to map well to real workflows.

1) Comparing “early action” vs. “later action” on timeline pressure

A common internal question:

• “What’s the added cost if we wait X more months?”

Model pattern:

• Run two delays (e.g., 10 vs. 16 months).
• Keep cost rate constant.
• Increase the probability/risk weighting for longer delay (or keep it constant if you want a conservative comparison).

2) Planning staffing and overhead across a multi-year horizon

When delay spans years, teams often estimate costs using:

• fixed overhead allocations,
• staffing cost per month,
• and variable expenses.

Model pattern:

• Convert expenses into a monthly rate.
• Use risk multipliers for increasing exposure as time passes.

New York anchor (general/default):

• Use the 5-year general SOL baseline under N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 30.10(2)(c) as a planning horizon reference.

3) Evaluating settlement posture with time-based leverage (internal)

Even without making a legal recommendation, you can quantify:

• how delay increases total cost,
• how much “pressure” a settlement timeline can create (economically).

Model pattern:

• Choose two likely settlement windows.
• Apply risk multipliers accordingly.
• Compare total cost-of-delay under each window.

4) Building an auditable memo for decision-makers

If your organization requires documentation, the model supports consistent reporting:

• inputs captured in a table,
• outputs compared side-by-side,
• assumptions logged (monthly cost rate, probability multipliers, delay months).

Checklist for a clean internal memo:

Tips for accuracy

Small modeling choices can meaningfully change outputs. Use these tips to keep results credible and repeatable.

Calibrate your monthly cost rate

A monthly cost rate should reflect what you can justify. Consider breaking it down internally:

• staffing time cost (hours × loaded hourly rate),
• document/processing costs,
• overhead allocations you consistently apply,
• and any other quantified operational costs.

If you can’t defend the components, you’ll get pushback later—especially when comparing strategies.

Keep risk multipliers explicitly defined

If your tool supports probability-weighting or multipliers, be consistent

Related reading

• Cost of Delay Modeler Guide for Alabama
• Cost of Delay Modeler Guide for Arizona
• Cost of Delay Modeler Guide for Colorado