to the op's question....yes you might be able to if you serve them or the facts that would be contained within them in a motion to admit and they get admitted.
otherwise, the rule is that a party has a right to cross examine any witness. makes sense right?
You need to get the affidavit introduced as evidence. The problem there is hearsay. From some things said it also seems there could be an improper character evidence too.
For hearsay, the courts summarizes it as:
It seems a bit hard to track down the exceptions to hearsay in New York. Better would be to know what is being offered and by who.Out-of-court statements offered for the truth of their content constitute hearsay, and may not be admitted unless they come within an exception to the hearsay rule. (People v. Slaughter, 13 189 A.D.2d 157 (1st Dept. 1993).
It's really not hard to track down exceptions to hearsay. You look in the rules of evidence. You won't find any loophole that ets you smear your wife through affidavits without enabling her to depose your witnesses or cross-examine them at trial.
It is a little bit hard to find and why I didn't post a link.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1828942
Who Needs an Evidence Code?: The New York Court of Appeals' Radical Reevaluation of Hearsay
New York remains one of a handful of states without an evidence code. The law of evidence in New York has not, however, remained dormant. In the vital field of hearsay evidence jurisprudence, the New York Court of Appeals in the past decade has dramatically reshaped the admissibility landscape through common law development, leading to an unprecedented increase in the admission of out-of-court statements. Proponents of codification of the evidentiary rules in New York view it as the best way to achieve much-needed reform in the area, while opponents believe that codification inappropriately involves legislatures and politics in evidence law and will vest the trial judge with too much discretion, resulting in increased admissibility.
This Article shows that the Court of Appeals has altered the face of hearsay in New York State both by creating new exceptions and expanding existing ones, leading to in a pronounced trend toward greater admissibility. The consequence is a transformation in the types of evidence that jurors are permitted to hear and the ways in which trials are conducted. Part I examines the expansion of existing hearsay exceptions, focusing on excited utterances and statements made by witnesses who are unavailable due to the defendant's misconduct. Part II analyzes the recently adopted present sense impression exception, and the newly recognized due process catchall for reliable evidence that does not fit within any presently recognized exception. Part III evaluates the increased reliance on judicial interpretations of out-of-court statements as “nonhearsay.” Finally, Part IV analyzes the unintended, but predictable, consequences of the relaxation of evidentiary standards and attendant greater admissibility and their implications for the codification debate.