You are here: / / AFFIDAVIT AND ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION CONSTITUTED THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT...

AFFIDAVIT AND ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION CONSTITUTED THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A VERIFIED PETITION IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, THEREFORE THE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that petitioner's affidavit and attorney affirmation constituted the equivalent of a verified petition. The motion to dismiss the Article 78 actions should not have been granted:

A verified petition is required to establish a jurisdictional predicate for a special proceeding (see CPLR 304[a]; 7804[c], [d] …). CPLR 304(a) provides that “[a] special proceeding is commenced by filing a petition.” CPLR 7804(c) provides that “a notice of petition, together with the petition and affidavits specified in the notice, shall be served on any adverse party at least twenty days before the time at which the petition is noticed to be heard.” However, a document that is not denominated a verified petition may satisfy CPLR 304 and 7804 if it is the functional equivalent of a verified petition … .

Here, none of the papers filed and served by the petitioner was denominated a verified petition. However, the petitioner's papers, particularly her affidavit and the affirmation of her attorney, gave notice as to what administrative action was being challenged, the events upon which the action was taken, the basis of the challenge, and the relief sought … . Therefore, the papers fulfilled the purposes of a verified petition and were the functional equivalent of a verified petition … . Matter of Levine v Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs., 2018 NY Slip Op 06242, Second Dept 9-26-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (AFFIDAVIT AND ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION CONSTITUTED THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A VERIFIED PETITION IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, THEREFORE THE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 304 (AFFIDAVIT AND ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION CONSTITUTED THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A VERIFIED PETITION IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, THEREFORE THE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 7804 (AFFIDAVIT AND ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION CONSTITUTED THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A VERIFIED PETITION IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, THEREFORE THE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/VERIFIED PETITION (ARTICLE 78, CIVIL PROCEDURE, AFFIDAVIT AND ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION CONSTITUTED THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A VERIFIED PETITION IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, THEREFORE THE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THE SCAFFOLD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING FELL OVER WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO MOVE IT WHILE STANDING ON IT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
LAW REGARDING SALE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY WHERE ONLY ONE SPOUSE SIGNS THE CONTRACT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INJURED BY THE CONDITION HE WAS HIRED TO FIX IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
AN ORDER IS NOT ABANDONDED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48 UNLESS THE ORDER DIRECTS THAT IT BE SETTLED OR SUBMITTED FOR SIGNATURE.
THE PARTIES MARRIED IN 1974, STARTED DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS IN 1991, DISCONTINUED THE DIVORCE AND BEGAN LIVING TOGETHER AGAIN IN 1998, CONTINUED LIVING TOGETHER UNTIL THE INSTANT DIVORCE IN 2015; SUPREME COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP ENDED IN 1991; MATTER REMITTED FOR RECALCULATION OF THE MARITAL PROPERTY AND COUNSEL FEES (SECOND DEPT).
Arbitrator Exceeded His/Her Powers by Awarding More than the Requested Amount in Damages—Award Properly Vacated
THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT APPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S DEMOLITION-WORK-INJURY; THE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND WAS NOT, THEREFORE, LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FRONTMOST DRIVER NEGLIGENTLY BROUGHT HER CAR TO A COMPLETE STOP IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, FRONTMOST DRIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ADD THE ADDRESS OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP... SCHOOL HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS OF THE SLIP AND FALL CLAIM WITHIN 90...