You are here: / / THE ATTORNEY’S “CERTIFICATE OF TRANSLATION” DID NOT INCLUDE...
, , ,

THE ATTORNEY’S “CERTIFICATE OF TRANSLATION” DID NOT INCLUDE SUFFICIENT DETAIL ABOUT THE ATTORNEY’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPANISH LANGUAGE; THEREFORE THE TRANSLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT SUPPORTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing summary judgment in favor of plaintiff in this traffic accident case, determined the attorney’s “certificate of translation” was not sufficient to render plaintiff’s affidavit, written in Spanish, admissible:

… [P]laintiff submitted an affidavit in which he averred, among other things, that the “affidavit was translated to me from English to Spanish prior to my signing by a person who speaks Spanish as it is my native language and the language I understand best.” The plaintiff also submitted a certificate of translation by an associate attorney at his counsel’s law office in which the associate attorney affirmed, without elaboration, that she is fluent in English and Spanish and competent to translate documents from one language to the other. Under these circumstances, the conclusory certificate of translation does not contain sufficient detail concerning the extent of the associate attorney’s knowledge of the Spanish language. As such, the associate attorney’s certificate of translation was insufficient to state the associate attorney’s qualifications, rendering the plaintiff’s affidavit inadmissible (see CPLR 2101[b] …). Reyes v Underwood, 2024 NY Slip Op 05466, Second Dept 11-6-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s affidavit in support of summary judgment was in Spanish. An attorney provided a “certificate of translation” which did not include sufficient detail about the attorney’s knowledge of the Spanish language. Therefore the affidavit was inadmissible.​

 

You might also like
Difference Between Law of the Case and Issue and Claim Preclusion Explained
PETITION TO MODIFY VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED (1) HE WAS MISADVISED THAT HIS GUILTY PLEA WOULD NOT RESULT IN DEPORTATION AND (2), HAD HE BEEN PROPERLY ADVISED, A DECISION TO GO TO TRIAL WOULD HAVE BEEN RATIONAL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE ADMINISTRATOR’S MOTION TO BE SUBSTITUED AS PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, INITIALLY DENIED, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED UPON THE MOTION TO RENEW; THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW, AND A MOTION TO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR A DECEASED PARTY ARE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
OMISSION OF RETURN DATE FROM AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, WHICH DID NOT RESULT IN PREJUDICE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISREGARDED AS A TECHNICAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS DEMONSTRATING DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Single Step Was Open and Obvious
FAILURE TO PLEAD A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AS A DEFENSE WAIVED THE DEFECT; WITHOUT EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE, THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT PROVED (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 PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE ASSAULT SECOND AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION... IN THIS CHILD VICTIM’S ACT CASE ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE AFTER PLACEMENT...