Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50063(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“Defendant also submitted a peer review report of its psychologist, to which plaintiff objected in its opposing papers on the ground that the report was not in proper form. The Civil Court correctly held that the peer review report was not in admissible form because, pursuant to CPLR 2106, defendant’s psychologist could not affirm the truth of the statements contained therein (see Pascucci v Wilke, 60 AD3d 486 [2009]) and while the peer review report contained a notary public’s stamp and signature, it contained no attestation that the psychologist had been duly sworn or that she had appeared before the notary public”
Do I read the “or” as meaning that it would be acceptable if the psychologist has given an acknowledgment, which was sworn to a notary? Isn’t an oath when you swear to the truth of something?
Just seems odd.
