In Forman v. Whitney Ctr. for Permanent Cosmetics Corp., 155762/2015, 2019 NY Slip Op 03451 (App. Div. 1st Dept. May 2, 2019), the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s lawsuit in which plaintiff alleged (inter alia) that defendant acted negligently in performing cosmetic tattooing on the plaintiff.
From the decision:
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted (see generally Zuckerman v New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Defendants established that plaintiff, who had been getting cosmetic eyebrow tattoos periodically for over twenty years, signed a consent form indicating that she understood the risks involved in getting eyebrow tattoos and that she was responsible for the placement and shape of her eyebrows. Prior to performing any pigmentation work, the eyebrows were drawn on and plaintiff explicitly approved of the proposed shape and location on her forehead. Defendants then tattooed plaintiff where she had approved. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning defendants’ alleged negligence.
The court also held that the trial court properly considered defendant’s affidavit – even assuming that the affidavit was invalid due to lack of certification, per CPLR 2309(c) – explaining that “[c]ourts are not rigid with this certification requirement” and that “[p]rovided that the oath was duly given (which it was here), authentication of the oathgiver’s authority may be secured later and given nunc pro tunc effect[.]”