Skip to main content
So the newest 2309(c) case now holds that this statute is irrelevent
2106 and 2309

So the newest 2309(c) case now holds that this statute is irrelevent

By Jason Tenenbaum 8 min read

Key Takeaway

Second Department rules that CPLR 2309(c) notarization defects are not fatal when corrective certification can be provided nunc pro tunc under CPLR 2001.

This article is part of our ongoing 2106 and 2309 coverage, with 194 published articles analyzing 2106 and 2309 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.

CPLR 2309(c) Defects Can Be Cured After the Fact, Court Rules

In New York civil practice, proper document authentication and notarization requirements under CPLR 2309(c) have long been a source of procedural disputes. This statute requires that documents notarized outside New York State must be accompanied by a certificate of conformity to ensure their validity in New York courts. Failure to comply with these requirements has historically led to significant litigation delays and dismissed cases.

However, a recent Second Department decision provides important guidance on how courts should handle procedural defects in document submission. The ruling demonstrates the court’s willingness to apply curative measures rather than impose harsh penalties for technical violations, particularly when the underlying documentation requirements can still be satisfied.

This decision has significant implications for practitioners who frequently deal with out-of-state notarized documents in foreclosure actions, commercial litigation, and other civil matters where proper procedural compliance is essential but technical defects may occur.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Dellarmo, 2012 NY Slip Op 02481 (2d Dept. 2012)

“The plaintiff’s failure to comply with CPLR 2309(c) in submitting various documents, including, among others, the corrective assignment, which were notarized outside the state but not accompanied with a certificate in conformity with CPLR 2309(c), was not a fatal defect, as such certification may be provided nunc pro tunc”see CPLR 2001….”

Key Takeaway

The Second Department’s ruling establishes that CPLR 2309(c) defects are curable rather than fatal. Courts can allow parties to provide the required certification “nunc pro tunc” (retroactively) under CPLR 2001, which grants courts broad discretion to cure procedural defects in the interest of justice. This practical approach prevents technical violations from derailing otherwise meritorious cases.


Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 analysis of CPLR 2309(c) authentication requirements, New York courts have continued to develop jurisprudence regarding document notarization defects and curative measures. The procedural landscape for out-of-state notarized documents and certificate of conformity requirements may have evolved through subsequent appellate decisions and potential amendments to court rules. Practitioners should verify current provisions of CPLR 2309(c) and review recent case law to ensure compliance with current authentication standards.

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.

About This Topic

CPLR 2106 and 2309: Affirmation & Oath Requirements

CPLR 2106 governs who may submit an affirmation in lieu of an affidavit in New York courts, while CPLR 2309 addresses the requirements for oaths, affidavits, and the certification of out-of-state documents. These seemingly technical provisions have significant practical impact — an improperly executed affirmation or affidavit can render an entire summary judgment motion defective. These articles analyze the formal requirements, common defects, and court decisions that practitioners must navigate when preparing sworn statements.

194 published articles in 2106 and 2309

Keep Reading

More 2106 and 2309 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
5102(d) issues

Causation, Renewal and a probable trip to the Court of Appeals

Henry v Peguero 2010 case analysis examining causation requirements in 5102(d) serious injury threshold claims, renewal motions, and potential Court of Appeals review.

May 1, 2010
Procedural Issues

CPLR 3211(a) – you may cure pleadings in opposition to a preanswer motion

Learn how CPLR 3211(a) allows defendants to cure pleadings when opposing pre-answer motions in New York civil litigation. Essential guide for Long Island attorneys.

Jan 25, 2009
Declaratory Judgment Action

No reasonable excuse found

Court finds no reasonable excuse for default in no-fault declaratory judgment action where medical providers failed to respond despite proper service.

Jul 6, 2014
Evidence

Oral application granted (untimely papers accepted) and the deeming acceptable of an affirmation of a physician in a different specialty

Court grants oral application accepting untimely expert papers and physician affirmation from different specialty in Buffalo General Hospital case.

Jun 18, 2012
View all 2106 and 2309 articles

Common Questions

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between a CPLR 2106 affirmation and a CPLR 2309 affidavit?

A CPLR 2106 affirmation can be signed by an attorney, physician, dentist, or podiatrist without notarization — the affirmant simply affirms under penalty of perjury. A CPLR 2309 affidavit requires a notary public or authorized officer to administer an oath. Using the wrong form can result in a court rejecting the submission.

When must I use a notarized affidavit versus an affirmation in New York?

Licensed attorneys, physicians, dentists, and podiatrists may use unsworn affirmations under CPLR 2106. All other individuals must use notarized affidavits under CPLR 2309. In no-fault litigation, this distinction frequently arises when submitting medical evidence or opposing summary judgment motions.

Can a court reject evidence submitted in the wrong format?

Yes. Courts routinely reject affidavits and affirmations that do not comply with CPLR 2106 or 2309. An improperly sworn document may be treated as a nullity, which can be fatal to a motion for summary judgment or opposition. Proper formatting is a critical procedural requirement in New York practice.

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 2106 and 2309 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 (13)

Archived from the original blog discussion.

RZ
Raymond Zuppa
How do Courts do that. They’ve done it to me twice. Unless a statute is unconstitutional the Court cannot strke it down. This is the Court playing legislature which in reality becomes the Court stealing citizen’s votes: “the legislature is the embodiment of the people.” What a bung hole of a Country.
LR
Larry Rogak
The way I’m reading it, the court is only saying the certificate of conformity can be provided nunc pro tunc. The courts have been holding this in no-fault cases for quite a while. I don’t see this case saying the c of c is not necessary at all.
J
JT Author
It cited CPLR 2001. Form defects may be waived, and because they may be waived, it follows that nunc pro tunc relief would allow the document to be admissible in the first instance, sans c of c.
N
nycoolbreez
Does the RPL have its own version of CPLR rule 2001? It seems to me that CPLR rule 2001 governs litigation, but the assignment of a mortgage, its recording, and the standing that therefore results would be covered by the RPL and should not be corrected by reference to a statute designed to save a pleading. This is not about the assignment being admissible this is about the assignment being valid at the time the action was commenced, no?
DJ
Damin J. Toell
The RPL is only applicable in this scenario in the first place because CPLR 2309 says it is, so I’m not sure you can rely on CPLR 2309 while simultaneously disregarding CPLR 2001.
RZ
Ray Zuppa
I don’t know where this is going but I will say this. Two separate provisions of the CPLR. One cannot be interpreted to cancel the other out.
N
nycoolbreez
CPLR 2309 deals with oaths and affirmation, and 2309(a)only incorporates the RPL because it allows people authorized to take ACKNOWLEDGMENTS to give the oath. The RPL sect 291 et seq. governs the recording of INSTRUMENTS affecting real property, RPL 299-a. Allows INSTRUMENTS ACKNOWLEDGED out of the state to be conformed to NY law with the appropriate certificate of conformity much like CPLR 2309(C). CPLR 2001 by its language applies only in actions. I do not know if the RPL has a section like CPLR 2001 that allows defects in INSTRUMENTS to be saved nunc pro tunc. Maybe ZUPPA is right, maybe this is a BUNG HOLE of a country!
RZ
Ray Zuppa
The first sign that a nation is going bung hole is the hiring of mercenaries. I give you the end of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the end of the British Empire. I give you Kellog Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Haliburton, and Black Water as examples. Our own military used to protect itself; construct its own installations and provide its own logistical support. Now we hire people to do this. Our wars are about profits and much like a shell management company the siphoning of money. In this country’s case we use war to siphon money away from the middleclass to the Dick Cheneys of this once proud nation. That’s why there is one third less of us. We live in Gestapo Land. Good legal analysis Breeze. Now I actually understand the issues.
N
nycoolbreez
Damin J. Toell is correct, in that 2309(c) incorporates the RPL to the extent a certificate of conformity is acceptable so long as it is sufficient enough to entitle a deed to be registered. on re-reading my post I did not make that clear.
RZ
ray zuppa
Where’s the Deed? Where’s the certificate of conformity? “I went back to New York, but my City was gone …”
SB
square badge square pants
Zuppa you are confusing you’re hatred of yourself with hatred of America. There is only one power on earth that has consistently stopped empires bent on world enslavement – and that is this one. The United States stopped Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union and we are going to stop Fascist Jihadism next. Perhaps you should introduce the vagaries of No Fault litigation to Quebec since you are so disgusted with this once proud nation – which, to my mind, is still and should still be proudest of the nations on the face of this earth.
RZ
Raymond Zuppa
Square Badge my love for myself is infamously incredible. This not the America that beat the Nazis or Imperial Japan. You are seriously confused sir. You must be doing the same drugs as your hero Rush “fat boy” Limbaugh. This is the Country of 5 draft deferment Dick “Dick” Cheney. This is the Fascist Country that invaded Iraq for corporate profits and then gave it to Iran — the real enemy. BTW Dick “the dick” Cheney got around the ban on doing business with Iran by forming an offshore subsidiary of Haliburton called Kellog Brown and Root. That’s the company that supplied our troops in Iraq feces laden water. Are you suggesting that I move to Canada. I will suggest what I always suggest. You or any surrogate you want — beat me in a fight; legal in a gym in N.J. and I will leave the country and go to Canada. I so savor beating you or some other trailer park, skoal spitting, cousin fornicating right wing jack ass to a pulp.
H
HeyHeyHey
Hey Zuppa, guess what? People made money off of World War II, and World War I and the Spanish-American War and every war Americans have ever been involved in. War requires supplies, and supplies have to be made and paid for, and no one makes supplies at a loss. Process that. Dick Cheney applied for and received 5 draft deferments, yes. But your boy Bill Clinton got his buddy, Senator Fulbright, to use his influence to exempt him from the draft. I’d like you to whine about that, please. Do you have any facts to support the claim that the US invaded Iraq for corporate profit, or is that just a leftist talking point you repeat like an idiot parrot? BTW, Kellogg Brown and Root has been in existence since approximately 1989. It wasn’t formed by Cheney. Kellogg and Brown and Root have each been in existence since the early 20th Century. Try to verify your leftist nonsense before you spout it. Will beating you in a fight cause you to move to Canada like all the Hollywood lefties promised to move if Bush got elected or reelected? Another internet tough guy. Wow. That’s new.

Legal Resources

Understanding New York 2106 and 2309 Law

New York has a unique legal landscape that affects how 2106 and 2309 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 2106 and 2309 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