In Kallo v Kane St. Synagogue, 241AD3d 522 [2nd Dept 2025], the Second Department found that a defective affirmation that was missing the required language of CPLR 2106 may be corrected with the submission of a reply affirmation containing the requisite language. Here, the reply papers submitted by respondents' counsel also fail to comport with CPLR 2106. As such, the subject affirmation of petitioner's and respondents' attorneys fails to acknowledge the importance and seriousness of the statements made in the affirmation and the consequences of making false statements, as required by the statute (see Zhou at 419; see generally Matter of Grandsard v Hutchinson, 227 AD3d 491 [1st Dept 2024]; Great Lakes Ins. SE v American S.S. Owners Mut. Protection & Indem. Assn. Inc., 228 AD3d 429 [1st Dept 2024]; Fifth Partners LLC v Foley, 227 AD3d 543 [1st Dept 2024]). Accordingly, any facts asserted by petitioner's and respondents' attorneys in the subject affirmations are inadmissible and lack probative value.
Nevertheless, the Court may properly consider the legal arguments advanced in both affirmations as well as the facts set forth in the properly executed affirmation of respondent/tenant Carla Kohut (hereinafter "Kohut affirmation") and the properly executed affidavit of petitioner/landlord Reza Ardebili (hereinafter "Ardebili affidavit").