You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S COUNSELS “AFFIRMATION OF GOOD FAITH” WAS...
,

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSELS “AFFIRMATION OF GOOD FAITH” WAS DEFICIENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to strike an affirmative defense was not supported by a sufficient “affirmation of good faith” from plaintiff’s counsel:

The court should have denied plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer because the affirmation of good faith from plaintiff’s counsel failed to comply with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 202.20-f(b). Counsel states only perfunctorily that defendants failed to comply with four court orders for a deposition and that he contacted defendants on a certain date to confirm the deposition. Counsel failed to attest that he conducted an in-person or telephonic conference as required by 22 NYCRR 202.20-f(b) … . While counsel’s affirmation in support of the motion provides additional explanations, such as that “[they] made an effort” to contact defendants’ counsel and that “[their] office made [an] effort to confirm the deposition,” the affirmation fails to specify the mode of communications, by whom or to whom the communications were made, whether any messages were left, and whether counsel followed up with the attempt to confirm the deposition (see 22 NYCRR 202.7[a], [c] … . Servan v ES Bldrs. Group LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05184, First Dept 9-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the required contents of plaintiff’s counsel’s “affirmation of good faith” detailing efforts to resolve the issues with defendant’s counsel before moving to strike an affirmative defense. Here the affirmation was deemed deficient, requiring denial of the motion.

 

You might also like
NEW YORK HAS JURISDICTION OVER OUT-OF-STATE DEFENDANT JUUL LABS, THE MANUFACTURER OF ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES, AND TWO CORPORATE OFFICERS IN AN ACTION ALLEGING DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES, FRAUD AND PUBLIC NUISANCE (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT DID NOT OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION ON AN EVIDENTIARY GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
SENTENCING JUDGE MAY HAVE MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THE MINIMUM PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS FIVE YEARS WHEN IT ACTUALLY WAS TWO AND A HALF YEARS, MATTER SENT BACK FOR RESENTENCING (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (ESPINAL FACTORS) (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A CABLE TRAY FELL ON HIS HEAD FROM THE TOP OF TWO LADDERS, A SUBCONTRACTOR WAS LIABLE BECAUSE THE CONTRACT DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL THE WORK TO THE SUBCONTRACTOR, THE LESSEE WAS LIABLE AS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO INCLUDE CITY, STATE AND/OR ZIP CODES OF THE CANDIDATES’ RESIDENCES DID NOT INVALIDATE THE DESIGNATING PETITIONS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A TEXAS RESIDENT WHO WAS A FLIGHT ATTENDANT FOR 30 YEARS WITH MONTHLY STAY-OVERS IN NEW YORK, DEMONSTRATED NEW YORK HAD LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE NEW JERSEY COMPANY WHICH MANUFACTURED AND DISTRIBUTED TALCUM POWDER PLAINTIFF USED; THE TALCUM POWDER ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S MESOTHELIOMA (FIRST DEPT).
First Responder, a NYC Police Officer, Was Entitled to the World Trade Center Presumption that Her Illness, Fibromyalgia, Was Caused by Environmental Exposure at the Site of the 2001 Collapse of the World Trade Center

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

CLAIMANT, A PER DIEM SUBSTITUTE TEACHER, WAS GIVEN REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF CONTINUED... EXCESSIVE ABSENCES FROM SCHOOL SUPPORTED THE EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT FINDINGS, BUT...