On October 16, 2025, Justice Boddie of the Kings County Commercial Division issued a decision in Crystal v. American Tr. Ins. Co., 2025 NY Slip Op. 34045(U), holding that a deposition transcript unsupported by a factual affidavit was sufficient support for a motion for summary judgment, explaining:
Plaintiffs argument in opposition to the summary judgment motions interposed by RMA and ATIC that such motions must be denied in that they are not supported by an affidavit from a person with knowledge is unavailing. This line of argument is rooted in a common logical misapprehension stemming from precedents as to the lack of evidentiary value of attorney affirmations. It is assuredly well established that a bare attorney affirmation is of no evidentiary value.
The foregoing notwithstanding, Plaintiffs contention that the absence of an affidavit from a person with knowledge supporting RMA and A TIC’ s motions for summary judgment warrants the denial of such motions is in tension with statutory authority. Indeed, as detailed above, RMA and ATIC’s motions for summary judgment are predicated on Plaintiffs admissions during his deposition, which admissions underscore the lack of privity between Plaintiff~ on the one hand, and RMA or ATIC, on the other hand, thereby vitiating Plaintiffs breach of contract claims against such entities. As such, the fact that RMA and A TI C’s summary judgment motions were not supported by an affidavit from a person with knowledge is immaterial as such motions are supported by the functional equivalent of an affidavit from a person with knowledge, namely, Plaintiffs sworn deposition transcript.
Plaintiff cites to no precedent in his opposition papers holding that a motion for summary judgment must be supported by an affidavit from a person with knowledge, rather than a deposition transcript. Plaintiffs failure to cite to any authority supporting his position that a motion for summary judgment must be accompanied by an affidavit from a person with knowledge, as distinguished from a deposition transcript, is understandable. No such case law exists. To the contrary, CPLR 3212 (b ), which is cited by Plaintiff in his opposition papers, makes plain that a deposition transcript constitutes a proper evidentiary vehicle in the context of a summary judgment motion:
(b) Supporting proof; grounds; relief to either party. A motion for summary judgment shall be supported by affidavit, by a copy of the pleadings and by other available proof, such as depositions and written admissions. The affidavit shall be by a person having knowledge of the facts.
Based on the foregoing, RMA’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 to dismiss the complaint insofar as it is asserted against RMA is hereby granted.
(Internal citations omitted).