Skip to main content
The minimum that an affidavit must contain
Affidavits

The minimum that an affidavit must contain

By Jason Tenenbaum 8 min read

Key Takeaway

Learn the minimum requirements for a valid affidavit in New York courts, including essential language and notarization standards from recent case law.

This article is part of our ongoing affidavits coverage, with 195 published articles analyzing affidavits issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.

Affidavits serve as crucial evidence in New York litigation, but their effectiveness depends entirely on proper form and execution. Courts regularly scrutinize these sworn statements to ensure they meet basic legal requirements, and even minor defects can render them inadmissible. Understanding the minimum standards for a valid affidavit can save attorneys and litigants from costly procedural errors that might derail their cases.

The New York Appellate Division, Second Department, recently clarified these requirements in a decision that provides helpful guidance for practitioners. This ruling demonstrates how courts evaluate affidavit form and what elements are absolutely necessary for acceptance. For attorneys handling summary judgment motions or other proceedings requiring sworn testimony, these standards are particularly important to understand.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Furtow v Jenstro Enters., Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 05987 (2d Dept. 2010)

“Here, Ching submitted an affidavit which recited that he was “duly sworn” and contained a jurat stating that the affidavit was “sworn to before” a notary public, who signed and stamped the document. On the record presented here, the form of the affidavit was adequate (see Sirico v F.G.G. Prods., Inc., 71 AD3d 429; Sparaco v Sparaco, 309 AD2d 1029, 1030; Feinman v Mennan Oil Co., 248 AD2d at 504; Collins v AA Truck Renting Corp., 209 AD2d at 363).”

The affidavit at a minimum must say this: John Doe, DULY SWORN….

Sworn to before

notary public

Key Takeaway

New York courts require affidavits to contain specific language stating the affiant was “duly sworn” and include proper notarization with a jurat indicating the document was “sworn to before” a notary public. While courts may allow clarifying affidavits when defects exist, meeting these minimum requirements from the start ensures admissibility and avoids potential delays in litigation.

Legal Context

Why This Matters for Your Case

New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.

Keep Reading

More Affidavits Analysis

FAQ

How to Talk to a Judge in New York: What to Say, What to Avoid, and How to Present Yourself

Practical guide on how to talk to a judge in New York courts. Proper forms of address, courtroom behavior, and tips from Long Island attorney Jason Tenenbaum. Call 516-750-0595.

Feb 24, 2026
Evidence

CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation

NY CPLR 2106 amendment eliminates notarized affidavits and certificates of conformity. Learn how this changes litigation practice. Call 516-750-0595.

Feb 18, 2026
Additional Verification

Another IME no-show victory shrowded in American Transit citations

Court victory for insurer after patient's IME no-show, featuring American Transit citations and analysis of denial rights in New York no-fault cases.

Jun 4, 2014
Preservation of defenses on NF-10

Brutal loss on a coverage case

Court rules State Farm's 15-day delay in sending disclaimer letters after completing investigation was unreasonable, resulting in waived coverage defenses.

Apr 25, 2012
Hypo-technical defects

It is back: A framed issue hearing for "faxed, copied, stamped or electronically signed" documents

NY appellate court orders framed issue hearing to resolve document signature validity dispute, highlighting ongoing judicial inconsistency in electronic signature cases.

Apr 21, 2010
Procedural Issues

Understanding Motion to Dismiss in New York Personal Injury Cases

Learn about motions to dismiss in New York personal injury cases. Expert legal guidance from experienced attorneys. Call 516-750-0595 for free consultation.

Oct 24, 2019
View all Affidavits articles

Common Questions

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the requirements for a valid affidavit in New York?

Under CPLR 2309, an affidavit must be sworn before a notary public or other authorized officer. It must contain statements of fact based on the affiant's personal knowledge — not conclusions, opinions, or hearsay. The affiant must be identified, the oath properly administered, and the document signed and notarized.

Can an affirmation substitute for an affidavit in New York?

Only if the affirmant is an attorney, physician, dentist, or podiatrist under CPLR 2106. These professionals may submit unsworn affirmations under penalty of perjury instead of notarized affidavits. All other individuals must use properly notarized affidavits.

What happens if an affidavit is defective in a no-fault case?

A defective affidavit — one lacking personal knowledge, improperly notarized, or containing inadmissible hearsay — may be rejected by the court. This can be fatal to a motion for summary judgment, whether brought by the insurer or the claimant. Courts strictly enforce affidavit requirements in no-fault litigation.

What are common procedural defenses in New York no-fault litigation?

Common procedural defenses include untimely denial of claims (insurers must issue denials within 30 days under 11 NYCRR §65-3.8(c)), failure to properly schedule EUOs or IMEs, defective service of process, and failure to comply with verification request requirements. Procedural compliance is critical because courts strictly enforce these requirements, and a single procedural misstep by the insurer can result in the denial being overturned.

What is the CPLR and how does it affect my case?

The New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) is the primary procedural statute governing civil litigation in New York state courts. It covers everything from service of process (CPLR 308) and motion practice (CPLR 2214) to discovery (CPLR 3101-3140), statute of limitations (CPLR 213-214), and judgments. Understanding and complying with CPLR requirements is essential for successful litigation.

Was this article helpful?

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.

Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.

Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.

24+ years in practice 1,000+ appeals written 100K+ no-fault cases $100M+ recovered

Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.

New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.

If you need legal help with a affidavits matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jason Tenenbaum, Personal Injury Attorney serving Long Island, Nassau County and Suffolk County

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum

Jason Tenenbaum is a personal injury attorney serving Long Island, Nassau & Suffolk Counties, and New York City. Admitted to practice in NY, NJ, FL, TX, GA, MI, and Federal courts, Jason is one of the few attorneys who writes his own appeals and tries his own cases. Since 2002, he has authored over 2,353 articles on no-fault insurance law, personal injury, and employment law — a resource other attorneys rely on to stay current on New York appellate decisions.

Education
Syracuse University College of Law
Experience
24+ Years
Articles
2,353+ Published
Licensed In
7 States + Federal

Discussion

Comments (11)

Archived from the original blog discussion.

RZ
Raymond Zuppa
The langauge is supposed to awaken the consciousness that a lie will have repercussions. It was originally thought of in religious terms but early on — real early on like the 1920s — courts held that it did not have to awaken a religous consciousness but any sort of moral or ethical quandry caused by a lie. (I cite the above case law and it is old) In other words it has to tell you that you are not supposed to lie. Swear + lie = perjury An affidavit still requires an oath — swear or affirm –before a notary and a handwritten signature witnessed by the notary. I spoke with the Department of State about that. I am getting a written opinion. Some idiots still confuse or attempt to pass of the requirements of an acknowledgement as being adequate for an Affidavit. I see some heavy litigation brewing in that area.
J
JT Author
Are you referencing an acknowledgment in the form that is required for a deed to be recorded?
RZ
Raymond Zuppa
Yes but a whole range of other matters too. There are a host of documents where all that is required is that the notary verify that John Doe signed the document without any need for a formal “swearing” or “affirming” to tell the truth. All the notary stamp is supposed to prove is that John Doe is known to the notary — i.e. he shows I.D. — as John Doe and this is his signature. Some morons think or at least argue that a Peer Review Report that is prepared by a doctor — thereby merely affirmed without the need for a notary — is subject to the Electronic Signature law. That’s like an electronic signature on an attorney affirmation or a big fat stamp. You know them J.T. Of course the caselaw says not — as well as the rule itself. It’s applicable to things like traffic tickets. etc. but it should not be since a traffic ticket is a simplified information.
J
JT Author
But an attorney is subject to rule 130, thus the affirmation must be holographic. Otherwise, the Electronic Signature Act and the State Technology law allowing electronic signatures would apply to attorney affirmations. Someone I know has an omnibus motion challenging the electronic signature affirmation presented in a simplified information. The lead case on point is Vista v. Travelers.
RZ
Raymond Zuppa
I don’t see how that is possible J.T. unless you show me. I am well aware of Rule 130. Say there is no rule 130. The Electronic Signature Act and the State Technology Law would not allow an attorney’s affirmation to be electronic. If that were so J.T. an M.D.’s affirmed Peer Review Report — the one that does not require a notary just like our affirmations — could be electronic; and we know (at least most of us) that this is not the case. See your case or one of the Vistas. The same policy applies. An attorney is affirming the truth under penalty of perjury just like a so called M.D. that signs a Peer Review Report. Where does it say that this could be Electronic. Not the statute. I know an attorney’s word is not worth the ink that signs his or her name but sign his affirmation he must.
J
JT Author
I think an electronic signature is proper on a physician affirmation. But, a foundation in accordance with the ESA and the NYSTL must be laid. The reason Rogy and the Vistas went the way they did was because there was no proper foundation for the electronic signature. Vista and Rogy have pretty much taught us what is necessary to lay the appropriate foundation. The purpose of the ESA and NYSTL was to encourage electronic commerce. The legislative intent and practice commentaries memorialize that point. Assuming what you are saying is true, then the act to a large extent would be pointless. I thus respectfully disagree with your analysis.
RZ
Raymond Zuppa
The statutes wanted to aid ministerial acts of commerce. Swearing that someone does not need any further medical treatment although ministerial for an insurance company is not ministerial commerce. Mind you anything and everything is related to commerce. Witness the New Deal and Civil Rights legislation that drew its existence from the commerce clause of the constitution. But swearing without signing — no … no … I am looking forward to a case wherein someone lays a foundation for an electronic signature on a Peer Review Report. M.D. or not it is still an Affidavit. I respectfully state that you have read to much into Vista and Rogy.
J
JT Author
Ray, I would bet a nice sum of money that I am right on this one.
RZ
Raymond Zuppa
Which issue. The lawyer affirmation or the M.D. Peer? I never bet money because if I lose I will not pay and no one is tough enough to make me pay. Just give me chapter and verse. Give me the cite and I’ll look it up. If the law supports your position I will so state here on The Defender with commentary if appropriate.
J
JT Author
Ray, What i was saying is that the law will support my viewpoint. The chapter and verse, when written, will find its way on here!
RZ
Raymond Zuppa
Jason now we know what you are saying. Do me a favor. Some people say that you are just a bright intelligent intellectual with a brilliant future that does very well by his clients; yet a gutless wonder. Well they do not say the last part. I added it. But anyway when this issue comes before you promise me you’ll let me know in advance so that I may have the opportunity to volunteer my bro bono services and write the papers; all the way to the Ct of Appeals. Here is the bet. And I’ll pay up if I lose — dinner at the winner’s favorite restaurant. If I lose and you go ultra expensive I am not eating — I’ll watch; you can do the same.

Legal Resources

Understanding New York Affidavits Law

New York has a unique legal landscape that affects how affidavits cases are litigated and resolved. The state's court system includes the Civil Court (for claims up to $25,000), the Supreme Court (the primary trial court for unlimited jurisdiction), the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts), the Appellate Division (divided into four Departments, with the Second Department covering Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and several upstate counties), and the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court). Each court has its own procedural requirements, local rules, and case-assignment practices that can significantly impact the outcome of your case.

For affidavits matters on Long Island, cases are typically filed in Nassau County Supreme Court (at the courthouse in Mineola) or Suffolk County Supreme Court (in Riverhead). No-fault arbitrations are heard through the American Arbitration Association, which assigns arbitrators throughout the metropolitan area. Workers' compensation claims go to the Workers' Compensation Board, with hearings at district offices across the state. Understanding which forum is appropriate for your case — and the specific procedural rules that apply — is essential for a successful outcome.

The procedural landscape in New York also includes important timing requirements that can affect your case. Most civil actions are subject to statutes of limitations ranging from one year (for intentional torts and claims against municipalities) to six years (for contract actions). Personal injury cases generally have a three-year deadline under CPLR 214(5), while medical malpractice claims must be filed within two and a half years under CPLR 214-a. No-fault insurance claims have their own regulatory deadlines, including 30-day filing requirements for applications and 45-day deadlines for provider claims. Understanding and complying with these deadlines is critical — missing a filing deadline can permanently bar your claim, regardless of how strong your case may be on the merits.

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum regularly practices in all of these venues. His office at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, NY 11746, is centrally located on Long Island, providing convenient access to courts and offices throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and New York City. Whether you need representation in a no-fault arbitration, a personal injury trial, an employment discrimination hearing, or an appeal to the Appellate Division, the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. brings $24+ years of real courtroom experience to your case. If you have questions about the legal issues discussed in this article, call (516) 750-0595 for a free, no-obligation consultation.

New York's substantive law also presents distinct challenges. In motor vehicle cases, the no-fault system under Insurance Law Article 51 provides first-party benefits regardless of fault, but limits the right to sue for non-economic damages unless the plaintiff establishes a "serious injury" under one of nine statutory categories. This threshold — codified at Insurance Law Section 5102(d) — requires medical evidence showing more than a minor or subjective injury, and courts have developed detailed standards for each category. Fractures must be documented through imaging studies. Claims of permanent consequential limitation or significant limitation of use require quantified range-of-motion testing with comparison to norms. The 90/180-day category demands proof that the plaintiff was unable to perform substantially all of their usual daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days following the accident.

In employment discrimination cases, the legal standards vary depending on whether the claim arises under state or local law. The New York State Human Rights Law employs a burden-shifting framework: the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by showing membership in a protected class, qualification for the position, an adverse employment action, and circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision. If the employer meets this burden, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the stated reason is pretextual. The New York City Human Rights Law, by contrast, applies a broader standard, asking whether the plaintiff was treated less well than other employees because of a protected characteristic.

Free Consultation — No Upfront Fees

Injured on Long Island?
We Fight for What You Deserve.

Serving Nassau County, Suffolk County, and all of New York City. You pay nothing unless we win.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. has been fighting for the rights of injured New Yorkers since 2002. With over 24 years of experience handling personal injury, no-fault insurance, employment discrimination, and workers' compensation cases, Jason Tenenbaum brings the legal knowledge and courtroom experience your case demands. Every consultation is free and confidential, and we work on a contingency fee basis — meaning you pay absolutely nothing unless we recover compensation for you.

Available 24/7  ·  No fees unless you win  ·  Serving Long Island & NYC

Injured? Don't Wait.

Get Your Free Case Evaluation Today

No fees unless we win — available 24/7 for emergencies.

Call Now Free Review