On July 15, 2026, Justice Reed of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Magnetic Parts Trading Ltd. v. National Air Cargo Group, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op. 51114(U), rejecting an affidavit because it did not include the exact working required by the CPLR, explaining:
Before it reaches the merits, the Court addresses several preliminary issues. First, in opposition, Defendant argues the Court should disregard the affirmations of Daniel C. Green, Esq. and Alexander Vella because they do not conform with the requirements of CPLR § 2106. Additionally, Defendant claims that the Vella affirmation should be disregarded because it was executed outside of New York State and submitted without a certificate of conformity. In reply, Plaintiff requests that the Court accept the Vella and Green affirmations because any alleged defects have been cured.
After January 1, 2024, under CPLR § 2016, affirmations must include the following language or language that is substantially similar:
“I affirm this _ day of , , under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, and I understand that this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law.”
Failure to include this language renders the affirmation and annexed exhibits inadmissible. CPLR § 2001 gives a Court discretion to disregard a party’s omission, mistake, or defect if there is no substantial prejudice to a party. Accordingly, a Court may consider a corrected affirmation submitted on reply. Additionally, CPLR § 2309(c) provides that an affirmation executed outside of the State of New York must have a sworn affidavit and be accompanied by a certificate of conformity. The Court also has discretion to allow a party to correct this type of defect nunc pro tunc.
Here, the Court can consider the amended Vella affirmation because it is notarized and accompanied by a certificate of conformity, and it includes the proper language in accordance with CPLR § 2106. However, the Court cannot consider the amended Green affirmation because it is only made under the penalty of perjury and does not recognize the laws of New York and the possibility of fines or imprisonment and as a result is not in admissible form and cannot be relied upon.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).