PL 210.45 verification is a sufficient affidavit

What Gonzalez v Ayala actually decided

Gonzalez v Ayala, 141 AD3d 687 (2d Dept 2016), involved a motorcycle’s collision with the rear of a box truck. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that the truck driver was free from fault.

Their own submissions included an affidavit and witness statements verified under Penal Law § 210.45. Those materials conflicted about the accident, including whether the truck stopped short at a green light.

The Second Department reversed the grant of summary judgment. The defendants had not eliminated factual issues, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposition.

This was not a holding about evidence needed to defeat a hypothetical motion by the plaintiff. The problem was in the moving defendants’ own proof.

Jason’s original observation — September 16, 2016

Jason used the case to question the restrictions then attached to affirmations:

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.

Those are his 2016 words, not a description of today’s eligibility rules. His earlier Loucks case note now separates the old expert-affirmation problem from the 2024 and 2025 statutory changes.

CPLR 2106 no longer has the old professional limitation

Current CPLR 2106 permits a properly subscribed and affirmed statement by any person, wherever made, subject to its requirements and express exceptions.

It does not say that affirmations are limited to papers “not requiring an affidavit.” Nor does it impose the former professional or party-status restriction as the present eligibility rule.

The exceptions include depositions, oaths of office and certain oaths required before a specified person. The statute also preserves required acknowledgment of matrimonial agreements.

The Crotona Heights note records a successful objection under the former rule. Its historical result should not be used to reject a current statement solely because the signer is a party or corporate principal.

Verification does not settle every evidentiary question

Penal Law § 210.45 addresses knowingly false written statements bearing the specified warning. It is not a general replacement for all civil evidentiary requirements.

A warning on a police report does not automatically cure authentication or every embedded hearsay statement. The CPLR 4518 guide discusses that separate business-records problem.

Gonzalez remains useful for a narrower lesson: a movant must inspect its own submissions for factual conflicts. The form of a statement and whether it supports the requested judgment are different questions.

For review of a current file, request a Free Case Review.

Last reviewed: September 2026 — editorial source check against Gonzalez and current CPLR 2106 and Penal Law § 210.45. Original publication date retained.