Key Takeaway
New York courts reject contradictory statements made to defeat summary judgment, treating later conflicting versions as "feigned issues of fact" rather than genuine disputes.
Understanding “Feigned Issues of Fact” in New York Litigation
In New York civil litigation, courts frequently encounter situations where parties attempt to create factual disputes by contradicting their own previous statements. This tactical maneuver—whether done through affidavits, depositions, or other sworn testimony—rarely succeeds in preventing summary judgment.
The legal principle at stake involves the concept of judicial admissions and the authenticity of factual disputes. When a party makes clear, unambiguous statements about material facts in affidavits or depositions, those statements typically bind them in subsequent proceedings. Courts recognize that allowing parties to freely contradict their earlier sworn testimony would undermine the integrity of the litigation process and create artificial factual disputes designed solely to avoid summary judgment.
This doctrine protects against manufactured controversies while ensuring that genuine factual disputes receive proper consideration. However, it’s worth noting that courts do sometimes permit clarification of previous statements under specific circumstances, particularly when the earlier statement was ambiguous or incomplete rather than directly contradictory.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Mirjani v DeVito, 2016 NY Slip Op 00448 (1st Dept. 2016)
“It is axiomatic that statements made by a party in an affidavit, a police report, or a deposition that are not denied by the party constitute an admission, and that later, conflicting statements containing a different version of the facts are insufficient to defeat summary judgment, as the later version presents only a feigned issue of fact”
Key Takeaway
The Mirjani decision reinforces that New York courts will not allow parties to avoid summary judgment by simply contradicting their previous sworn statements. Once a party makes clear admissions in official documents like affidavits or depositions, attempting to create factual disputes through later inconsistent statements will be dismissed as presenting only “feigned issues of fact”—not genuine disputes worthy of trial.
