You are here: / / THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT’S REPRESENTATIVE’S SIGNATURE AND THE...

THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT’S REPRESENTATIVE’S SIGNATURE AND THE JURAT APPEARED ON AN OTHERWISE BLANK PAGE SEPARATE FROM THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT A GROUND FOR DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s unopposed motion for summary judgment should not have been denied on the ground that defendant’s representative’s signature and the jurat appeared on a page separate from the rest of defendant’s affidavit:

The Supreme Court denied the motion on the ground that, in an affidavit of Charles Dunne, an authorized representative of the defendant, on which the defendant primarily relied in support of its motion, Dunne’s signature and the jurat appeared on a separate, otherwise blank page. The defendant appeals.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s unopposed motion on the ground that Dunne’s affidavit was not properly signed. The fact that Dunne’s signature and the jurat appeared on a page separate from the rest of the affidavit did not render it inadmissible. If anything, the separate signature page amounted to an irregularity that the court should have disregarded, as doing so did not prejudice the plaintiff (see CPLR 2001…), which was deemed to have waived the issue by failing to timely raise it after service of the defendant’s motion papers … . Status Gen. Dev., Inc. v 501 Broadway Partners, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05217, Second Dept 7-11-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT’S REPRESENTATIVE’S SIGNATURE AND THE JURAT APPEARED ON AN OTHERWISE BLANK PAGE SEPARATE FROM THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT A GROUND FOR DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/AFFIDAVITS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT’S REPRESENTATIVE’S SIGNATURE AND THE JURAT APPEARED ON AN OTHERWISE BLANK PAGE SEPARATE FROM THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT A GROUND FOR DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2001 (THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT’S REPRESENTATIVE’S SIGNATURE AND THE JURAT APPEARED ON AN OTHERWISE BLANK PAGE SEPARATE FROM THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT A GROUND FOR DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT’S REPRESENTATIVE’S SIGNATURE AND THE JURAT APPEARED ON AN OTHERWISE BLANK PAGE SEPARATE FROM THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT A GROUND FOR DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/JURAT (CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT’S REPRESENTATIVE’S SIGNATURE AND THE JURAT APPEARED ON AN OTHERWISE BLANK PAGE SEPARATE FROM THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT A GROUND FOR DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
FIRE DISTRICT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST A SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THE FIRE DISTRICT RAISED AN ECONOMIC CONCERN ABOUT INCREASED SERVICE CALLS, NOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (SECOND DEPT).
THE 2ND DEPARTMENT CRITICIZED THE PIECEMEAL DECISION-MAKING BY SUPREME COURT IN THIS COMPLEX DIVORCE PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN AN INADEQUATE RECORD ON APPEAL; HOWEVER THE 2ND DEPARTMENT ADDRESSED MANY OF THE FACTUAL ISSUES IN A DETAILED OPINION WORTH READING BUT IMPOSSIBLE TO SUMMARIZE HERE (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Owner of Servient State Had Duty to Maintain Easement in Safe Condition/Easement Used for Servient-Estate-Owner’s Own Purposes
PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF’S PARKED VEHICLE WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND BY DEFENDANT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE VIOLATED TRAFFIC RULES RE: PARKING SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS NOT RELEVANT TO LIABILITY (SECOND DEPT).
PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION AMOUNTED TO MISCONDUCT, 911 CALL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION OR AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, CROSS-EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANT UNDULY RESTRICTED.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A UNIFIED TRIAL (LIABILITY AND DAMAGES) IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE NATURE OF THE INJURIES WAS RELEVANT TO HOW THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED (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

CPLR 311-A REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY... PLAINTIFFS DID NOT ALLEGE THAT DEFENDANT CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND...