Fredette v Town of Southampton, 2012 NY Slip Op 03595 (2d Dept. 2012)
“it improvidently exercised its discretion in excluding from consideration the affidavits of Ken Glaser and Kris Kubly on the ground that the affidavits, while notarized, were not accompanied by a certificate of conformity required by CPLR 2309(c). This Court has previously held that the absence of a certificate of conformity for an out-of-state affidavit is not a fatal defect (see Smith v Allstate Ins. Co., 38 AD3d 522, 523), a view shared by the Appellate Division, First and Third Departments as well (see Matapos Tech. Ltd. v Compania Andina de Comercio Ltda, 68 AD3d 672 [1st Dept]; Sparaco v Sparaco, 309 AD2d 1029, 1031 [3d Dept]; Nandy v Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp., 155 AD2d 833 [3d Dept]; see also Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2309:3).”
3 Responses
What’s the world coming to when a notarized affidavit from out of state can be considered by our courts in a no-fault suit without conforming to the same requirements as filing a deed? {{{SMH}}}
I am grateful that 2309(c) can be considered buried, finally. It makes as much sense in the 2012 world as does 2106. Why can’t lay people affirm? Are notaries going to be put out of business? I do not understand.
2309(c) may have been buried by the Appellate Division but its animated corpse will probably live on, zombie-like, in the Civil Courts for quite a while.