Slavenburg Corp. v. Opus Apparel, Inc., 422 N.E.2d 570 (NY 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
Slavenburg Corp. v. Opus Apparel, Inc., 422 N.E.2d 570 (NY 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Samuel & Weininger v. Belovin & Franzblau
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
Because the attorney is also an associate of the plaintiff law firm which is a party to the action, the submission of an affirmation instead of an affidavit was improper (see CPLR 2106; Slavenburg Corp. v Opus Apparel, 53 NY2d 799, 801 [1981]; Pisacreta v Minniti, 265 AD2d 540 [1999]; Board of Mgrs. of Ocean Terrace Towne House Condominium v Lent, 148 AD2d 408, 409 [1989]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Seven Acre Wood Street Associates, Inc. v. Town of Bedford
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court properly disregarded the affirmation, since the attorney should have submitted an affidavit (see CPLR 2106; Slavenburg Corp. v Opus Apparel, 53 NY2d 799, 801 [1981]; Pisacreta v Minniti, 265 AD2d 540 [1999]).
discussed Cited "see" Kallo v. Kane St. Synagogue
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
Effective January 1, 2024, CPLR 2106, as amended, provides that "[t]he statement of any person wherever made, subscribed and affirmed by that person to be true under the penalties of perjury, may be used in an action in New York in lieu of and with the same force and effect as an affidavit." Prior to such amendment, courts held that "[a]ny person who, for religious or other reasons, wishes to use an affirmation as an alternative to a sworn statement may do so, but such affirmation must be made before a notary public or other authorized official, and the affirmant must be answerable for the cri…
discussed Cited "see" People v. Eisenstadt
N.Y. App. Term. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111-b (d), “[a] certificate, sworn to or affirmed by a technician employed by Nassau county in which the charged violation occurred . . . based upon inspection of photographs, microphotographs, videotape or other recorded images produced by a traffic-control signal photo violation-monitoring system, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein.” To be effective such a certificate must be sworn to or affirmed before a notary public or other authorized official (CPLR 2309 [a]; see Slavenburg Corp. v Opus Apparel, 53 NY2d 799, 800 [1981]…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Zeichner v. Mamaroneck Union Free School District
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 302 AD2d 511 [2d Dept 2003]; see also Slavenburg Corp. v Opus Apparel, 53 NY2d 799 , 801 n [1981]; Matter of Flaton v Caso, 86 Misc 2d 695 , 698 [Sup Ct, Nassau County 1976].) Pro se petitioner’s opposition is thus in improper form.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." M.P. Development v. Malone Economic Development Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
The assertion of lack of authority is based upon nothing more than the wholly conclusory averment to that effect by defendant’s president, which we view as lacking in probative value (see, Manhattan Film v Entertainment Guars., 156 AD2d 152, 153 ; see also, Slavenburg Corp. v Opus Apparel, 53 NY2d 799 ; Matter of Piela v Van Voris, 229 AD2d 94 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Slavenburg Corporation
v.
Opus Apparel, Inc., and Louis Kestenbaum
New York Court of Appeals.
Apr 28, 1981.
422 N.E.2d 570
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Robert J. Clerkin and Richard Turyn for appellant., Louis Strassberg for respondent.
Cited by 25 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the order and the judgment of Supreme Court, New York County, reinstated. The question certified should be answered in the negative.

We agree with the dissenter in the Appellate Division that the guarantee agreement signed by defendant Kestenbaum was so broad as to encompass the subsequent letter agreement between plaintiff and Nu-Ka-Pool Apparel, Inc., and that the subsequent execution of that agreement did not release him from his personal guarantee. Defendant’s conclusory allegation that the corporate officer who entered into the agreement on behalf of Nu-Ka-Pool was without authority to do so is insufficient to raise a question of fact[*801] on this issue. Indeed, none of defendant’s contentions on this appeal are supported by evidentiary facts sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.* Thus, in our view, Special Term properly granted summary judgment to plaintiff, and properly denied defendant’s motion to serve an amended answer.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Waghtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

We note that the affirmation of defendant Kestenbaum, upon which he heavily relies, is not in an authorized form. Only an attorney, physician, osteopath or dentist authorized to practice within this State can serve and file an affirmation bearing his signature alone in lieu of and with the same force and effect as an affidavit. (CPLR 2106.) Moreover, even those persons who are statutorily allowed to use such affirmations cannot do so when they are a party to an action. (See Schutzer v Suss-Kolyer, 57 AD2d 613.) It is also true, of course, that any person who, for religious or other reasons, wishes to use an affirmation as an alternative to a sworn statement may do so. However, to be effective such an affirmation must be made before a notary public or other authorized official. (CPLR 2309.) Otherwise, the affirmation would be of no probative value because the affirmant would not be answerable for the crime of perjury should he make a false statement. (Penal Law, § 210.00, subd 1.)