Opinion
November 29, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.).
We reject plaintiffs' contention that the two written statements defendant-respondent submitted to show a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious defense do not qualify as oaths and therefore should not have been considered. There is no specific form of oath required in this State (see, General Construction Law § 36), other than that it be "calculated to awaken the conscience and impress the mind of the person taking it in accordance with his [sic] religious or ethical beliefs" (CPLR 2309 [b]). While defendant does not say in either statement that he had been sworn, he does say that he has read the statements, and they are "true, factual and voluntarily given". In addition, both statements contain the jurat and stamp of a notary public, who, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, is presumed to have acted within his or her jurisdiction and carried out his or her duties as required by law (Matter of Cubisino v. Cohen, 47 N.Y.S.2d 952, 954, affd 267 App. Div. 591; see also, Matter of Weinbaum, 43 Misc.2d 991, 995, appeal dismissed 24 A.D.2d 632, lv dismissed 16 N.Y.2d 1078).
We have considered plaintiffs' other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.