Key Takeaway
Court accepts Penal Law § 210.45 verified statements as sufficient affidavits to raise factual issues, highlighting New York's antiquated approach to sworn statements.
New York’s courts continue to navigate the complexities of what constitutes sufficient sworn testimony in civil litigation. The state’s strict adherence to traditional affidavit requirements often creates procedural hurdles for litigants, while simultaneously accepting alternative forms of verification in certain circumstances. This tension becomes particularly apparent when courts accept statements verified under Penal Law § 210.45 as adequate evidence to raise genuine issues of material fact.
The distinction between various forms of sworn statements - whether traditional affidavits under CPLR or statements verified under Penal Law provisions - reflects broader questions about modernizing procedural requirements. While some jurisdictions have streamlined these processes, New York maintains its preference for formal affidavits, even as courts demonstrate flexibility in accepting alternative verification methods.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Gonzalez v Ayala, 2016 NY Slip Op 05626 (2d Dept. 2016)
“In support of their motion, the defendants submitted, inter alia, an affidavit from the defendant driver, and various witness statements verified pursuant to Law] Penal Law § 210.45, which presented conflicting evidence as to how the accident occurred, including a statement that the defendants’ vehicle “stop short at green light the motorcycle … had no time to stop or maneuver.”
In a state that still holds the affidavit so near and dear, I am amused when I see PL 210.45 statements sufficient to raise issues of fact. They should allow everyone to make CPLR 2106 statements in this state. We are so antiquated in that regard.
Key Takeaway
The Second Department’s acceptance of Penal Law § 210.45 verified statements as sufficient evidence demonstrates an inconsistency in New York’s approach to sworn testimony. While the state maintains strict traditional affidavit requirements, courts will accept these alternative verification methods to establish factual disputes, highlighting the need for procedural modernization in civil litigation.
