Blog

Defective notarizationNovember 16, 2014

Clarke v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51586(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)

(1) 2309 defect does not matter anymore.  “While plaintiff timely objected to the form of defendant’s affidavit, in that it did not comply with the requirements of CPLR 2309 (c), the absence of a certificate of conformity is not a fatal defect”

(2)”Nevertheless, we find that the affidavit of defendant’s claims analyst was not in proper admissible form for a different reason, to wit, that the notary public never stated therein that the claims analyst had personally appeared before her and was personally known to her or had satisfactorily established her identity (see Galetta v Galetta, 21 NY3d 186 [2013]; see also Fryer v Rockefeller, 63 NY 268 [1875]; Gross v Rowley, 147 App Div 529 [1911]; cf. Collins v AA Truck Renting Corp., 209 AD2d 363 [1994]). “

One Response

  1. The Hater says:

    What the court is saying here is simple — at least have the common decency to give the claimant a wrap around when your banging the claimant up the tuckus.

    In other words when your stamping these damn things three dozen an hour at least lie and say the affiant was in front of you instead of attending some fraud recognition training as part of ACT UP:

    “Does the name sound even remotely closely to Russian … if it does then its probably fraud.”

    I want to see you all die even if I see it holding the last breath I ever take.

Leave a Reply