Opinion
March 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted on behalf of the plaintiff Jennifer Feinman.
Contrary to the Supreme Court's conclusion, the affidavit by the chiropractor for the plaintiff Jennifer Feinman, which was submitted in opposition to the defendants' motion, was in admissible form and should have been considered by the court ( cf., Reeves v. Scopaz, 227 A.D.2d 606). There is no specific form of oath required in this State, other than that it be calculated to awaken the conscience and impress the mind of the person taking it in accordance with his or her religious or ethical beliefs. In addition, a notary, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, is presumed to have acted within his or her jurisdiction and to have carried out the duties required by law ( see, CPLR 2309 [b]; Collins v. AA Truck Renting Corp., 209 A.D.2d 363). Here there is nothing to indicate that the notary who executed the jurat at the end of the affidavit at issue acted without jurisdiction or failed to carry out the duties required by law.
Moreover, when the affidavit of Feinman's chiropractor is considered, it raises an issue of fact as to whether that plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The affidavit sets forth objective evidence of the extent or degree of her limitation of use of a body function or system, as well as of its duration. Thus, summary judgment should have been denied, and the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Jennifer Feinman is reinstated ( see, Parker v. Defontaine-Stratton, 231 A.D.2d 412; Rut v. Grigonis, 214 A.D.2d 721; Bates v. Peeples, 171 A.D.2d 635).
Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.