This page summarizes and comments on a published court decision. It is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts. Unless this page says otherwise, The Eskesen Law Firm did not represent any party in this case.
Bottom line
Every affirmation must explicitly state that it is made “under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment” as CPLR 2106 requires. Here, the First Department reversed a $9.2 million judgment, in part because all of the plaintiff’s evidence came in through an attorney affirmation that failed to substantially conform to that language.
The case
- Court
- Appellate Division, First Department
- Decided
- September 29, 2026
- Case
- Interasian Digital Tech. Holdings Ltd. v In Jin Moon Park
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 05478
- Official text
- Read the decision on the New York courts’ official reporter site
The facts
The plaintiff, a company, sought to hold the defendant liable for her ex-husband’s alleged fraudulent transfers of assets. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the plaintiff summary judgment, and on February 2, 2026, a judgment of $9,207,026.74 was entered against the defendant: $3,690,995.04, plus $5,515,256.70 in pre-judgment interest from July 1, 2009, plus $775 in costs and disbursements. All of the plaintiff’s evidence on the motion was submitted through an attorney affirmation. The defendant appealed.
The holding
The First Department unanimously reversed, vacated the judgment, and dismissed the complaint, on two separate grounds. First, the plaintiff “failed to proffer evidence in admissible form, as all of its evidence was submitted by way of an attorney affirmation that failed to substantially conform to the language of CPLR 2106, which requires any affirmation to explicitly state that it is made ‘under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment’” (2026 NY Slip Op 05478, *1). Second, even considering that evidence, the court found that the defendant was not a participant in the alleged fraudulent transfers; the plaintiff identified nothing beyond her joint ownership of one bank account (id., *2). The court also held that the defendant could not argue for Malaysian or Massachusetts law after relying on New York law in the case for more than a decade (id., *1).
What changed
Nothing new: this applies settled law. The court relied on a 2024 trial-level decision, Grandsard v Hutchison, which the First Department had affirmed without opinion. What stands out is the consequence: evidence submitted through an affirmation that did not substantially conform to the statute’s words was treated as not in admissible form.
What it means
- New York allows the statement of “any person” affirmed to be true under the penalties of perjury to be used in place of an affidavit (CPLR 2106).
- The words matter. An affirmation must substantially conform to the form in the statute, which includes the words “under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment” along with other required language.
- Evidence that comes in only through a defective affirmation may be treated as not in admissible form, and a motion that depends on it can fail.
- The same rule applies in injury cases, to affirmations from lawyers, clients, doctors, and witnesses.
Our view
Commentary by Frank N. Eskesen. This section is opinion.
We note that this was a commercial case, not an injury case, but its lesson applies to every case in which a lawyer, a client, or a witness signs an affirmation. Here, a judgment of more than $9 million was reversed, and one of the two reasons was the wording of an affirmation. The decision does not quote the affirmation or say when it was signed, so we do not know what it said. We note only that the CPLR’s required wording changed on January 1, 2024, and, in our experience, many attorneys kept using the old form long after the change. The court also reversed on the merits, so the outcome did not turn on the affirmation alone. With this decision, we believe every affirmation should be checked against the exact words of CPLR 2106 before it is filed. Sometimes one sentence can make all the difference.
Topics
Court: First Department. Year: 2026. Statutes: CPLR 2106; former Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273-276. Result: reversed.
Reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen, admitted in New York since 2000. Decided September 29, 2026. Posted October 5, 2026.
Questions about your own accident?
Call us for a free consultation. Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.