Key Takeaway
New York CPLR 2106 affirmation requirements in personal injury cases. Learn how improper affirmations can cost plaintiffs their cases and technical compliance rules.
Critical Legal Requirements for Affirmations in Personal Injury Cases
When pursuing personal injury claims in New York, understanding the technical requirements for legal affirmations can mean the difference between success and failure in court. For residents of Long Island and New York City dealing with complex legal procedures, a single procedural misstep can derail an otherwise meritorious case, as demonstrated in a costly legal precedent that continues to impact personal injury law today.
The strict requirements of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 2106 serve as a critical procedural safeguard, but they can also become a trap for the unwary. This is particularly important for personal injury victims in Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx, where technical compliance with court rules is essential for case success.
The Legal Foundation: Understanding CPLR 2106 Affirmation Requirements
Radiology Today, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50148(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2012)
“In opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted a doctor’s affirmation and the claim forms, which identified the doctor as plaintiff’s owner. In its reply papers, defendant objected to the affirmation on the ground that it failed to comply with CPLR 2106. Plaintiff’s submission of the doctor’s affirmation was improper because the doctor is a principal of plaintiff professional corporation, which is a party to the action (see CPLR 2106; Slavenburg Corp. v Opus Apparel, 53 NY2d 799 ; Samuel & Weininger v Belovin & Franzblau, 5 AD3d 466 ; High Quality Med., P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 29 Misc 3d 132, 2010 NY Slip Op 51900 ). Thus, plaintiff failed to proffer any evidence in admissible form which raised an issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 ).”
“Even if the affirmation of plaintiff’s doctor could properly be considered, plaintiff nevertheless failed to raise an issue of fact, as the doctor’s affirmation did not meaningfully refer to, let alone rebut, the conclusions set forth in defendant’s peer review report (see Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136, 2009 NY Slip Op 51495 ).”
I am pretty sure this was my appeal.
Understanding CPLR 2106: The Foundation of Proper Affirmations
What CPLR 2106 Requires
New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 2106 governs the use of affirmations in legal proceedings. The statute establishes strict requirements designed to ensure the integrity and reliability of sworn statements submitted to courts.
Key Provisions of CPLR 2106:
- Identity restrictions – Who can and cannot make affirmations
- Content requirements – What must be included in valid affirmations
- Format specifications – How affirmations must be structured
- Penalty provisions – Consequences for improper use
The Corporate Principal Problem
The Radiology Today case highlights one of the most common pitfalls under CPLR 2106: the prohibition against affirmations by corporate principals who are parties to the action.
Why This Rule Exists:
- Prevents self-serving testimony disguised as expert opinion
- Maintains testimonial integrity in legal proceedings
- Ensures independent expert analysis rather than partisan advocacy
- Protects opposing parties from prejudicial evidence
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a treating physician who owns the practice ever provide an affirmation?
Generally no, if the practice is a party to the litigation. CPLR 2106 prohibits affirmations by principals of corporate parties. However, treating physicians may testify at trial or provide depositions under different rules.
What happens if we discover the CPLR 2106 problem after submitting the affirmation?
Contact your attorney immediately. While challenging, it may be possible to supplement the record with proper evidence from independent sources, depending on court deadlines and procedural rules.
How can we avoid these issues in future cases?
Work with experienced personal injury attorneys who understand CPLR requirements and maintain relationships with independent medical experts. Early case evaluation should identify potential procedural obstacles.
Protecting Your Personal Injury Case from Procedural Pitfalls
If you’re dealing with a personal injury case involving medical evidence in Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, or the Bronx, technical compliance with New York’s procedural requirements is essential for success.
The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum understands the complex interplay between substantive medical issues and procedural requirements under CPLR 2106. Our team has experience navigating these technical challenges while building strong cases based on solid medical evidence.
Don’t let technical procedural requirements cost you your case. The stakes are too high, and the rules are too complex to navigate without experienced legal guidance.
Call us today at 516-750-0595 for a free consultation. We’ll review your case for potential procedural issues and develop a strategy that maximizes your chances of success while complying with all applicable court rules.
Related Articles
- More plaintiffs fail to rebut an insurance carrier’s medical utilization report
- The CPLR 2106 Trap: Why Medical Practice Owners Must Avoid This Critical Procedural Error
- Why Conclusory Affidavits Fail: Building Strong Opposition to Medical Necessity Summary Judgment Motions
- The Convergence of Medical Malpractice and No-Fault Litigation: Understanding Cross-Practice Legal Principles
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 post, CPLR 2106 affirmation requirements and related procedural provisions may have been subject to rule amendments, court interpretation updates, or changes in enforcement standards. Practitioners should verify current CPLR provisions and recent appellate decisions regarding affirmation compliance, particularly concerning requirements for professional corporation principals and medical necessity documentation in no-fault insurance cases.
