Mazroue v. Cigarillos 4 Corporation
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-09056
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mazroue v. Cigarillos 4 Corporation, Judge Caproni ordered properly notarized affidavits before considering plaintiffs’ wage claims for default judgment.
Youssef Mazroue and Mustafa Mazroue, whose affidavits supporting their minimum-wage and overtime claims were required to be properly notarized before the court could consider them for default judgment.
What happened
In Mazroue v. Cigarillos 4 Corporation, Youssef Mazroue and Mustafa Mazroue filed affidavits supporting their minimum-wage and overtime claims after the court required them to provide factual support for their unverified complaint.
The affidavits said they were signed in Astoria, New York, but were notarized by California notaries. The court stated that New York law does not allow those affidavits to be considered as evidence because they were notarized in the wrong state.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered the plaintiffs to submit properly notarized affidavits by May 17, 2024, so the court could consider them as sworn evidence when addressing default judgment.
The detailed version
- Mazroue v. Cigarillos 4 Corporation · No. 1:23-cv-09056
- Valerie Caproni
- May 7, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs, Youssef Mazroue and Mustafa Mazroue, brought minimum-wage and overtime claims against Cigarillos 4 Corporation and the other named defendants. Because the complaint was not verified, the court had previously ordered the plaintiffs to file affidavits providing the factual basis for those claims.
The plaintiffs filed affidavits on April 29, 2024. The affidavits stated that they were executed in Astoria, New York, but they were notarized by California notaries.
Court’s Reasoning
The court stated that New York law permits an affidavit executed in New York to be notarized only by a notary public appointed and commissioned in New York. Because the affidavits were executed in New York but notarized by California notaries, the court stated that they could not be considered as evidence.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to resubmit affidavits no later than Friday, May 17, 2024. The replacement affidavits had to be properly notarized by a notary public in the state where the affidavits were executed. The purpose was to allow the court to consider the affidavits as sworn evidence of the plaintiffs’ minimum-wage and overtime claims for purposes of default judgment. The order addressed the affidavits’ notarization and did not state a ruling on the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.