Appellate Division Decision Finds Attorney-Verified Pleadings Insufficient From Both Parties, Highlighting Need to Support Applications and Oppositions on Issues Such as Motions to Dismiss, Defaults, Etc. With Specific Facts and Likely Affidavits

Marshall Dennehey
Contact

Pemberton v. Montoya, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 02674, 2023 WL 3486551 (2d Dept May 17, 2023)

In a highly regular procedural development, the defendant in a vehicular accident failed to timely answer, and the plaintiff moved for a default. In response, the defendant interposed an answer verified only by his attorney. At the same time, the plaintiff’s complaint, too, was only attorney-verified.

The court ruled that an attorney verification, as an individual without personal knowledge, “is insufficient to establish its merits.” (Internal quotations omitted.) The court similarly found that since the plaintiff did not verify the complaint, he was not permitted to rely on the allegations within to supply the necessary proof, entitling the plaintiff to a default.

The appellate court essentially took counsel for both parties to task for pursuing applications without sufficiently verified proof. While barebones pleadings and attorney verifications are commonplace for pleadings done in the normal course, applications for and oppositions to default or motions to dismiss must contain sworn statements or facts in admissible form—attorney-verified pleadings are deemed insufficient as a matter of law.

Written by:

Marshall Dennehey
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Marshall Dennehey on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide