You are here: / / AN ANSWER OR A COMPLAINT VERIFIED BY AN ATTORNEY DOES NOT PROVE THE CONTENTS...
, , ,

AN ANSWER OR A COMPLAINT VERIFIED BY AN ATTORNEY DOES NOT PROVE THE CONTENTS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that an answer verified by an attorney (as opposed to the defendant) and a complaint verified by an attorney (as opposed to the plaintiff) do not prove the contents:

… [A]n answer verified by an attorney is insufficient to demonstrate that the defendant has a potentially meritorious defense … . …

… [A]lthough a verified complaint “may be used as the affidavit of the facts constituting the claim,” the complaint “must contain evidentiary facts from one with personal knowledge since a pleading verified by an attorney pursuant to CPLR 3020(d)(3) is insufficient to establish its merits” … . Since the complaint in this case was verified only by the plaintiff’s attorney, and not by the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not rely on its contents to supply proof of the facts constituting the claim. Pemberton v Montoya, 2023 NY Slip Op 02674, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: Answers and complaints verified by the attorney and not by the party do not prove the contents.

 

You might also like
HERE THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY A LOOSE FLOOR TILE IN PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PRECLUDED MOTHER FROM BRINGING FURTHER PETITIONS WITHOUT COURT APPROVAL (SECOND DEPT).
AMBIGUITY IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WAS RESOLVED BY LANGUAGE IN THE QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (QDRO), THE LANGUAGE IN THE QDRO SHOULD HAVE CONTROLLED THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).
Even Employees “Working Off the Books” Are Barred from Suing Employer in Tort
PETITIONER FAILED TO EXHAUST AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AFTER THE APPLICATION FOR A BUILIDING PERMIT WAS DENIED BY APPEALING TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS; THE FAILURE WAS NOT EXCUSED ON THE GROUND THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WAS AT STAKE (SECOND DEPT).
A PARTY INJURED IN A HIT AND RUN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CANNOT SUE THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) IF THE PARTY WAS OPERATING AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; HERE THE ELECTRIC BIKE PETITIONER WAS OPERATING WAS DEEMED AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT).
Violation of Confrontation Clause Was Harmless Error
PLAINTIFF FELL INTO A THREE-FEET-DEEP HOLE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE HOLE WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, DEFENDANT’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

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NO PARTY REQUESTED (SECOND... THE DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS OBSERVED BY THE POLICE OFFICERS IN THIS STREET...