You are here: / / THE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY FOR AN OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT...

THE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY FOR AN OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS A MERELY TECHNICAL DEFECT WHICH DID NOT PREVENT THE COURT FROM CONSIDERING THE AFFIDAVIT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the absence of a certificate of conformity for an out-of-state affidavit of service did not prevent the court from considering the affidavit in this dispute about the legitimacy of service of process in Nevada:

Ameritek’s [defendant’s] argument that the lack of a certificate of conformity prevents the affidavit of service from being considered is unavailing. Even if such a finding may not be made until after the court’s jurisdiction over Ameritek has been established … , any defects resulting from the absence of the certificate of conformity in this instance are merely technical and do not raise questions about “the likelihood that the summons and complaint will reach defendant and inform him that he is being sued” … . GS Capital Partners, LLC v Ameritek Ventures, 2023 NY Slip Op 01942, First Dept 4-13-23

Practice Point: The absence of a certificate of conformity for an out-of-state affidavit of service did not prevent the court from considering the affidavit.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY CREATED THE ROAD CONDITION WHICH CAUSED HIS SLIP AND FALL; THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE DEPOSIT OF FULL PAYMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN A COURT MONITORED ESCROW ACCOUNT DID NOT STOP THE ACCRUAL OF POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST (FIRST DEPT).
NO APPEAL LIES FROM DECLINING TO SIGN AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (FIRST DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, AS OPPOSED TO AN INSINCERE PROMISE OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS RAISED IN REPLY AND WAS NOT RAISED BELOW, IT WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT WAS DETERMINATIVE, DID NOT ALLEGE NEW FACTS, AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF RAISED BELOW (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE CONTRACT WAS BETWEEN CORPORATIONS IN DIFFERENT STATES, THEREFORE INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS IMPLICATED AND THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT (FAA) APPLIED; THE CONTRACT PROPERLY PROVIDED THAT THE ARBIRTRATOR, NOT A COURT, WILL DECIDE GATEWAY ISSUES OF ARBITRABILITY (FIRST DEPT).
WRONGFUL DEATH PROCEEDS BELONG TO THE DISTRIBUTEES, NOT THE ESTATE; THEREFORE, RATHER THAN DIVIDING THE PROCEEDS EQUALLY, SURROGATE’S COURT MUST CONDUCT A HEARING AND DISPURSE THE PROCEEDS BASED UPON PECUNIARY LOSS (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT INSURER DID NOT TIMELY DISCLAIM COVERAGE AND IS THEREFORE OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THE INSURED; A DISCLAIMER-NOTIFICATION MUST BE SPECIFIC AND UNAMBIGUOUS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY A CO-EMPLOYEE’S INTENTIONAL TORT (ASSAULT) (FIRST 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

IN 2011 PLAINTIFF WITHDREW THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT... PLAINTIFFS COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE RELIANCE UPON THE INFLATED RENTS DESCRIBED...