You are here: / / Where Attorney Is a Party to a Lawsuit, Attorney’s Submission of an Affirmation a...
, ,

Where Attorney Is a Party to a Lawsuit, Attorney’s Submission of an Affirmation as Opposed to an Affidavit in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Is Not a Sufficient Ground for Dismissal of the Complaint

The Second Department determined a complaint could not be dismissed on the ground that an attorney’s unnotarized affirmation was submitted in opposition to the motion, rather than an affidavit:

When an attorney is a party to an action, and affidavits are required to support or oppose a request for relief, that attorney may not rely upon an unnotarized affirmation in lieu of an affidavit, as the facts alleged in that affirmation would not be in admissible form (see CPLR 2106…). However, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, [plaintiff’s] submission of an unnotarized affirmation in lieu of an affidavit in opposition to the … defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them did not warrant the granting of that motion. “CPLR 3211 allows [a] plaintiff to submit affidavits, but it does not oblige him [or her] to do so on penalty of dismissal” … . Accordingly, [defendant’s] failure to submit an affidavit was not fatal to his opposition, and the Supreme Court should not have granted the … defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on that basis. Law Offs of Frishberg v Toman, 2013 NY Slip Op 02224, 2011-04956, 2011-07881, Index No 12965/10, 2nd Dept 4-3-13

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
LANDLORD DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE LEASE REQUIRED THE TENANT TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW, THEREFORE THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER, EVIDENCE THAT BEAMS HAD BEEN CUT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
Requirements for Indefinite Tolling of 30-Day Period During Which a No-Fault Carrier Must Determine Whether to Pay or Deny a Claim Explained
THE EVIDENCE OF “PHYSICAL INJURY” WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT THIRD CONVICTION VACATED (SECOND DEPT). ​
WHERE AN EMPLOYEE ACTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, ABSENT A VALID CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AN EMPLOYER CANNOT BE SUED FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION.
QUESTION OF FACT RAISED UNDER DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTED HEPATITIS C AFTER COLONOSCOPY.
THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT IN RPAPL 1371 FOR BRINGING A MOTION FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE PURCHASER OF PROPERTY AT A FORECLOSURE SALE FUNCTIONS AS A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; THE MOTION HERE WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Criteria for Determining Sufficiency of Evidence Before Grand Jury Explained... Criteria for Demonstrating Documents Were Material Prepared in Anticipation...