A declaration later became an affidavit

Court Allows Technical Correction from Declaration to Affidavit

Summary judgment motions in New York require strict adherence to procedural rules, particularly regarding the form of supporting evidence. Under CPLR 3212, affidavits are the preferred method for presenting factual evidence to support or oppose summary judgment. However, what happens when a party submits a declaration instead of a proper affidavit? A recent Fourth Department decision provides important guidance on how courts handle these technical defects.

In civil litigation, including New York no-fault insurance law cases, the distinction between declarations and affidavits might seem minor, but it can have significant procedural consequences. Affidavits require specific formalities, including being sworn before a notary public or other authorized official, while declarations are typically unsworn statements.

Case Background: Bacon & Seiler Constructors v Solvay Iron Works

This construction dispute involved Bacon & Seiler Constructors, a general contractor, suing Solvay Iron Works and other defendants over a commercial project. The defendants moved for summary judgment, initially supporting their motion with a declaration from Sheila Maestri rather than a proper affidavit. Under CPLR 3212, summary judgment motions must be supported by affidavits and other admissible evidence. A declaration—an unsworn statement—does not meet this requirement.

The plaintiff seized on this technical defect, arguing the defendants’ motion should be denied because they failed to submit evidence in proper form. This objection raised the question of whether courts must strictly enforce form requirements even when the substance of the evidence is identical and the defect is easily correctable. The trial court, exercising discretion under CPLR 2001, allowed the defendants to submit a proper affidavit from Maestri in their reply papers, curing the defect. The plaintiff appealed, contending this correction violated procedural rules governing motion practice.

The appeal presented broader questions about how rigidly courts should apply technical requirements when no prejudice results from minor violations. New York courts have long balanced the need for procedural regularity against the principle that litigation should be decided on merits rather than technicalities. CPLR 2001 grants courts discretion to disregard technical irregularities “not affecting the substantial rights of the parties,” but the scope of this discretion has limits.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Bacon & Seiler Constructors, Inc. v Solvay Iron Works, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04020 (4th Dept. 2020)

“Contrary to plaintiff’s further contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing defendants to correct an error in Sheila Maestri’s declaration. While the declaration initially submitted by defendants in support of the motion was defective because the declaration was not in affidavit form (see CPLR 3212 ), defendants corrected that technical defect by submitting the identical evidence in proper form in their reply papers. Under these circumstances, the [*2]original defect in form does not require denial of defendants’ motion with respect to Sheila Maestri (see CPLR 2001; Qi Sheng Lu v World Wide Travel of Greater N.Y., Ltd., 111 AD3d 690, 690 ; Matos v Schwartz, 104 AD3d 650, 653 ; Supreme Automotive Mfg. Corp. v Continental Cas. Co., 97 AD2d 700, 700 ).”

Legal Significance: CPLR 2001 and Technical Defects

The Fourth Department’s decision reinforces the principle that CPLR 2001 empowers courts to overlook technical defects that don’t prejudice opposing parties. This discretionary authority prevents litigation from becoming mired in procedural formalism when substantive justice can be achieved through minor corrections. The key question in applying CPLR 2001 is whether the correction affects the substantial rights of the parties or merely remedies a technical deficiency.

In Bacon & Seiler, no prejudice resulted from allowing the corrected affidavit. The plaintiff had full opportunity to respond to Maestri’s factual assertions, whether presented in declaration or affidavit form. The content of both documents was identical—only the form changed. The plaintiff couldn’t claim surprise or inability to respond, as they had already seen Maestri’s statement and could challenge it on substance. Allowing the correction thus promoted judicial efficiency by enabling the court to reach the merits rather than dismissing the motion on a technicality that would simply result in refiling.

The decision cites precedents establishing this principle. Qi Sheng Lu and Matos v Schwartz similarly allowed correction of technical defects when the corrected evidence merely formalized what had already been presented. These cases distinguish corrections that are truly technical from those that would prejudice opposing parties by introducing new evidence or arguments they haven’t had opportunity to address. The timing of the correction matters—providing corrected evidence in reply papers, before the motion is decided, differs from attempting to correct defects after an adverse ruling.

Practical Implications for Motion Practice

For movants, Bacon & Seiler provides reassurance that courts won’t necessarily deny motions for minor form violations when those defects can be corrected. However, practitioners shouldn’t rely on this safety net. Better practice requires ensuring all evidence is in proper form from the outset. Submitting defective evidence wastes judicial resources, creates unnecessary motion practice, and risks adverse rulings if courts decline to exercise discretion in the movant’s favor.

When defects are discovered, parties should move quickly to correct them. Submitting corrected evidence in reply papers, as the defendants did in Bacon & Seiler, maximizes the likelihood courts will excuse the defect. Waiting until after an adverse ruling to seek correction is far less likely to succeed, as courts may view such attempts as improper efforts to supplement the record after the motion has been denied.

For opposing parties, technical defects still provide grounds for objection, particularly when the defect affects substantial rights or when correction would prejudice the opponent. If a declaration contains factual assertions that couldn’t properly be made in an affidavit because the affiant lacks personal knowledge, objecting to the declaration may prevent conversion to affidavit form. If new evidence or theories appear in corrected submissions beyond what the original defective evidence contained, courts may reject the correction as improper supplementation rather than technical correction.

Key Takeaway

Courts maintain discretion to allow parties to correct technical defects in summary judgment papers, particularly when the same evidence is resubmitted in proper form. This decision reinforces that procedural flexibility under CPLR 2001 allows courts to focus on substantive issues rather than dismissing motions for minor technical violations, provided the correction doesn’t prejudice the opposing party.

Related Articles

• No-Fault attorney
• An affidavit really is not an affidavit
• CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement, What This Means for New York Litigation