Christian Medina v. Nelson Medina
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Family law/procedural: whether an English-only affirmation from a limited–English-proficiency litigant must be disregarded absent a translator affidavit under CPLR 2101(b).
The Supreme Court, Bronx County denied the husband's motion to set aside/vacate the separation agreement, disregarding his English-language affirmation for lack of a translator affidavit and finding he did not read or understand English.
The Appellate Division reversed the denial and remanded, holding the motion court should not have disregarded the husband's affirmation and denied the motion on that basis.
CPLR 2101(b) [requires that papers be in English, and that affidavits in a foreign language be accompanied by an English translation and a translator’s affidavit stating qualifications and accuracy] did not mandate rejection because the husband's affirmation was in English and the record contained no evidence he lacked present understanding of its contents; opposing counsel’s contrary statements were not based on personal knowledge.
Background
The parties executed a separation agreement on November 11, 2005. The husband moved to set aside and vacate the agreement. In support, he submitted an English-language affirmation stating he did not speak English 20 years ago and now speaks 'broken English.' Neither party claimed he currently cannot read, speak, or understand English; only the wife's counsel asserted such lack of proficiency, without personal knowledge.
Lower Court Decision
By order entered on or about September 4, 2024 (Supreme Court, Bronx County, Shawn T. Kelly, J.), the court denied the husband's motion, disregarded his English-language affirmation as noncompliant with CPLR 2101(b), and concluded that his attorney's affirmation was insufficient to establish the relevant facts.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, without costs, holding that the motion court should not have declined to consider the husband's English-language affirmation absent evidence he did not understand its contents. The court noted that while the better practice for non-fluent affiants is to submit a foreign-language affidavit with a certified translation, the record did not support the finding that the husband presently does not read or understand English. The matter was remanded for further proceedings on the husband's motion.
Legal Significance
Clarifies the application of CPLR 2101(b) to English-language affirmations by limited–English-proficiency litigants: a translator affidavit is required only for foreign-language affidavits, and courts should not disregard English affirmations without record evidence of non-comprehension; attorney assertions lacking personal knowledge are immaterial.
An English-only affirmation from a litigant with limited English proficiency need not be rejected under CPLR 2101(b) absent evidence the affiant did not understand its contents; the better practice of providing a translated affidavit is not a rigid requirement when the affidavit itself is in English.