New York Consolidated Laws
N.Y. Executive Law § 135 (2026)
Powers and duties; in general; of notaries public who are attorneys at law
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NY-LEGnysenate.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 135. Powers and duties; in general; of notaries public who are attorneys at law. Every notary public duly qualified is hereby authorized and empowered within and throughout the state to administer oaths and affirmations, to take affidavits and depositions, to receive and certify acknowledgments or proof of deeds, mortgages and powers of attorney and other instruments in writing; to demand acceptance or payment of foreign and inland bills of exchange, promissory notes and obligations in writing, and to protest the same for non-acceptance or non-payment, as the case may require, and, for use in another jurisdiction, to exercise such other powers and duties as by the laws of nations and according to commercial usage, or by the laws of any other government or country may be exercised and performed by notaries public, provided that when exercising such powers he shall set forth the name of such other jurisdiction. A notary public who is an attorney at law regularly admitted to practice in this state may, in his discretion, administer an oath or affirmation to or take the affidavit or acknowledgment of his client in respect of any matter, claim, action or proceeding. For any misconduct by a notary public in the performance of any of his powers such notary public shall be liable to the parties injured for all damages sustained by them. A notary public shall not, directly or indirectly, demand or receive for the protest for the non-payment of any note, or for the non-acceptance or non-payment of any bill of exchange, check or draft and giving the requisite notices and certificates of such protest, including his notarial seal, if affixed thereto, any greater fee or reward than seventy-five cents for such protest, and ten cents for each notice, not exceeding five, on any bill or note. Every notary public having a seal shall, except as otherwise provided, and when requested, affix his seal to such protest free of expense.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1971–2023 · leading case: Parks v. Leahey & Johnson, P. C., 613 N.E.2d 153 (NY 1993).
Parks v. Leahey & Johnson, P. C., 613 N.E.2d 153 (NY 1993). “As plaintiff argues, Executive Law § 142-a does not bar a fraud action against a notary-attorney brought pursuant to both Judiciary Law § 487 and Executive Law § 135, which respectively address attorney and notary misconduct.”
Plemmenou v. Anninos, 12 A.D.3d 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). “In an action, inter alia, to recover damages pursuant to Executive Law § 135 for misconduct by a notary public, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.”
Greenberg v. Blake, 117 A.D.3d 683 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). “The Supreme Court also properly granted that branch of the motion of the third-party defendant Kevin Jay Vernick which *685 was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the second cause of action, under Executive Law § 135, which was asserted against him only.”
In re Malatesta, 124 A.D.2d 62 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987). “15 (a); and improper use of notarial powers in violation of Executive Law §§ 135 and 135-a, and determined to refer the matter to this court with the recommendation that respondent be disbarred.”
Indep. Leasing Corp. v. Aquino, 133 Misc. 2d 564 (1986). “1 n Plaintiff’s cause of action against Kremblas and the Bank of New York for misconduct as a notary in taking the purported signature of James Aquino on the lease documents arises under Executive Law § 135, which, in pertinent part, provides as follows: "For any misconduct by a…”
Amodei v. New York State Chiropractic Ass'n, 160 A.D.2d 279 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). “The complaint, which alleges causes of action for defamation, prima facie tort, negligence and a private right of action for violation of the Notary Law (Executive Law § 135), was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211 [a] [7]).”
Plemmenou v. Arvanitakis, 39 A.D.3d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). “In its answer to the third-party complaint, the notary denied the bank’s material allegations, interposed 16 affirmative defenses, and asserted a counterclaim for common-law contribution and indemnification, based upon the damages he would sustain if found liable for notarial…”
Watts v. Oregon State Bd. of Nursing, 386 P.3d 34 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “]” N.Y. Exec. Law § 135 (McKinney). The replacement rule, effective after August 1, 2016, is not different in any relevant respect.”
Rock v. Schwartz, 244 A.D.2d 542 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). “—In an action to recover damages for misconduct of a notary public pursuant to Executive Law § 135, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.”
United States v. Leo Kaufman, 453 F.2d 306 (2d Cir. 1971). “) Or perhaps, as defendant suggests, Congress would have been content to prohibit only false “affidavits,” or sworn statements, leaving conduct such as we have here to be covered by state criminal laws, e.”
RLI Ins. Co. v. Athan Contracting Corp., 667 F. Supp. 2d 229 (E.D.N.Y 2009). “The claims against Pincus In light of the Court’s decision with respect to Athan and Koukoulis’s ratification of Rexines’s actions, both RLI’s claim and Athan and Koukoulis’s cross-claim against Pincus are no longer viable.”
Maloney v. Stone, 195 A.D.2d 1065 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). “Fagan’s conduct in notarizing the forged signatures without having seen plaintiffs was the proximate cause of MTT’s injury, and Executive Law § 135 imposes liability upon her for that misconduct.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.