The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159 were read on this motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION In this action arising from a contract for the sale of men’s suits, plaintiff Steven Albucker moves for summary judgment, individually and as assignee of plaintiff San Malone Enterprises. Albucker seeks $34,769 for the price of the suits, plus 2 percent contractual interest — both from corporate defendants S&S Enterprises and Unique Menswear and from defendant Hamid Edirs individually. BACKGROUND In November 2010 through February 2011, Edirs placed seven orders for men’s suits with San Malone Enterprises through Albucker, a San Malone sales representative. (See NYSCEF No. 137 at 12.) The corresponding invoices show that Edirs ordered a total of $34,769 of goods for his businesses: corporate defendants S&S International and Unique Menswear.1 (See NYSCEF No. 137 at 9.) Edirs admits that all goods were delivered. (See NYSCEF No. 149 at 64:5-7.) Yet Edirs never paid San Malone. Edir claims this was due to damaged or irregular goods, a claim Albucker disputes. As a term of Albucker’s employment with San Malone, the $34,769 in unpaid goods was deducted from Albucker’s commissions after 120 days. (NYSCEF No. 137 at 3.) Albucker brought this action, asserting claims for both breach of contract (which he pursues as San Malone’s assignee) and for unjust enrichment. Additionally, Albucker seeks to pierce the corporate veil to recover directly from Edirs as an individual. Albucker now moves for summary judgment. The motion is denied. DISCUSSION I. Edirs’s Argument that Albucker Lacks Standing Albucker is bringing this action both individually and as assignee of San Malone. (NYSCEF No. 137 at 4.) Edirs contends that the instrument of assignment is inadmissible under CPLR 2309 (c) because it was notarized in California and lacks the necessary certificate of conformity. (See NYSCEF No. 156 at 7 17.) Absent admissible evidence of the assignment, Edirs argues, Albucker has failed to show that he has standing to sue as San Malone’s assignee, requiring denial of his motion. (See id. at 5-6.) The court is not persuaded by this argument. Courts have not strictly applied CPLR 2309 (c); and they have found out-of-state affidavits admissible even absent a proper certificate of conformity. (See Ruchames v. New York & Presby. Hosp., 176 AD3d 602, 603 [1st Dept 2019]; Matapos Tech. Ltd. v. Compania Andina de Comercio Ltda, 68 AD3d 672, 673 [1st Dept 2009].) The lack of a certificate of conformity “is a mere irregularity, not a fatal defect, which can be disregarded in the absence of a showing of actual prejudice.” (Capital One, N.A. v. McCormack, 183 AD3d 644, 628-629 [2d Dept 2020].) Edirs has not shown — indeed, does not attempt to show — prejudice. This court therefore disregards the absence of the certificate. II. Albucker’s Breach-of-Contract Claim Under UCC 2-602, a buyer must notify the seller of rejection of goods “within a reasonable time” after delivery for the rejection to be effective. Whether the rejection was made in a “reasonable time” is generally a question of fact. (New York City Off-Track Betting Corp. v. Safe Factory Outlet, Inc., 28 AD3d 175, 178 [1st Dept 2006].) After notifying the seller of rejection, a buyer is obligated to hold the goods with “reasonable care…for a time sufficient to permit the seller to remove them.” (UCC 2-602 [2] [b].) Failure to notify the seller of rejection within a reasonable time or doing anything “inconsistent with the seller’s ownership” constitutes acceptance. (UCC 2-606 [1] [c].) Albucker argues that Edirs accepted the goods under UCC 2-606 by failing to make an effective rejection within a reasonable time. (NYSCEF No. 137 at
2, 21, 27.) Albucker claims that Edirs never told Albucker that the suits were defective and that he would be rejecting them. (See NYSCEF No. 138 at
