Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing 2106 and 2309 coverage, with 195 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:
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
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.
Related Articles
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.
195 published articles in 2106 and 2309
Keep Reading
More 2106 and 2309 Analysis
How to Talk to a Judge in New York: What to Say, What to Avoid, and How to Present Yourself
Address the judge as 'Your Honor,' stand when you speak, wait to be recognized, and keep answers short and honest. A Long Island trial lawyer explains.
Feb 24, 2026
CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation
New York's CPLR 2106 permits affirmations in place of many sworn documents. See the 2024 and 2025 changes, exceptions, and historical case notes.
Feb 18, 2026
EUO no-show DJ is successful (for the most part)
Second Department affirms declaratory judgment for insurer after medical provider failed to appear for two examinations under oath, establishing material breach of no-fault policy.
Apr 30, 2014
The search for the mystical Torres, and the hunt to obtain post-appellate renewal
Abrams reversed a grant of post-appeal renewal. Read the majority's diligence and proof findings, the dissent, and related CPLR 2221 cases.
Apr 16, 2012
A conclusory statement is insufficient to raise an issue of fact that a signature was "faxed" or "electronic"
Ortho-Med rejected an unsupported signature objection without reaching the reply papers. Jason's original case account is preserved with current context.
Apr 11, 2010
Combating Litigation Delay Tactics in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
Insurance companies use delay tactics to avoid paying no-fault claims. Learn how courts combat these strategies and protect your rights.
Dec 22, 2018Was this article helpful?
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.
