Wednesday, May 26, 2021

NO CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY IN LITIGATION?


CPLR 2309 (c) provides "(c) Oaths and affirmations taken without the state. An oath or affirmation taken without the state shall be treated as if taken within the state if it is accompanied by such certificate or certificates as would be required to entitle a deed acknowledged without the state to be recorded within the state if such deed had been acknowledged before the officer who administered the oath or affirmation."

RPP 299-A provides the requirements for an  acknowledgment to conform to the law of New York or of place where taken and for a certificate of conformity.

What is the effect if, in your motion, the affidavit is notarized out of state but does not contain the certificate of conformity?

GREENWAY MED. SUPPLY CORP. v. DOLLAR RENT A CAR, 2021 NY Slip Op 50439 - NY: Appellate Term, 2nd Dept. May 14, 2021:

"In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affidavit from its third-party claims examiner which was sufficient to establish, prima facie, defendant's lack of coverage defense (see New Way Med. Supply Corp. v Dollar Rent A Car, 49 Misc 3d 154[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51794[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). To the extent the claims examiner's affidavit, which was notarized outside the State of New York, failed to conform to the requirements set forth in CPLR 2309(c) and Real Property Law § 299-a regarding the submission of a certificate of conformity, the absence of a certificate of conformity is not a fatal defect (see Fuller v Nesbitt, 116 AD3d 999 [2014]Fredette v Town of Southampton, 95 AD3d 940 [2012]see also Gonzalez v Perkan Concrete Corp., 110 AD3d 955 [2013]Smith v Allstate Ins. Co., 38 AD3d 522 [2007]Active Chiropractic, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 43 Misc 3d 134[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50634[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]), as the defect may be disregarded pursuant to CPLR 2001 where a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced (see Midfirst Bank v Agho, 121 AD3d 343 [2014]Rivers v Birnbaum, 102 AD3d 26 [2012]). In the present case, plaintiff failed to make any showing of prejudice. In opposition to defendant's prima facie showing, plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact."

NOTE: New York also permits the filing of a certificate of conformity nunc pro tunc, by which the affidavits could be rendered admissible. See Matos v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 30906 - NY Co. Supreme Court March 12, 2021


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.