Eastern Star Acupuncture, P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co.
Annotate this CaseDecided on January 14, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, JJ
570686/09.
Eastern Star Acupuncture, P.C., a/a/o Charles Jeter, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, - -
against
Clarendon National Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County
(Raul Cruz, J.), entered October 16, 2008, which denied its motion for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint.
Per Curiam.
Order (Raul Cruz, J.), entered October 16, 2008, reversed, without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed on the condition that defendant, within 60 days of service upon it of a copy of this order with notice of entry, files with the Clerk of the Civil Court and serves upon plaintiffs an affidavit of Steven Esteves that is accompanied by a certificate demonstrating that the notary administered the oath as prescribed by the laws of the State of New Jersey. In the event defendant fails to duly file and serve such an affidavit, the order is affirmed, without costs.
The affidavit submitted by defendant of its employee (Esteves) established defendant's
entitlement to summary judgment dismissing this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits.
Plaintiffs, however, raised a timely objection to the form of this affidavit, asserting that it did not
comply with CPLR 2309(c). Specifically, plaintiffs correctly note that the affidavit failed to
include a certificate demonstrating that the notary administered the oath as prescribed by the
laws of the State of New Jersey, the state in which the oath was administered (see CPLR
2309[c]; Real Property Law § 299-a[1]; PRA III, LLC v Gonzalez, 54 AD3d 917
[2008]). Inasmuch as the document can be given nunc pro tunc effect once the appropriate
certificate is obtained (Nandy v Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp., 155 AD2d 833, 834 [1989];
see Moccia v. Carrier Car Rental, Inc., 40 AD3d 504, 505 [2008]; see also Matapos
Tech. Ltd. v Compania Andina de Comercio Ltda, ___AD3d___, 2009 NY Slip Op. 09713
[Dec. 29, 2009]), we reverse the order and grant defendant's motion for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint on the conditions stated above (cf. Sandoro v Andzel, 307
AD2d 706, 708-708 [2003]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur
[*2]
Decision Date: January 14, 2010
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.