Key Takeaway
New York First Department rules electronic signatures have same validity as handwritten signatures under State Technology Law § 304(2) for legal affidavits and court documents.
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.
Martin v Portexit Corp., 2012 NY Slip Op 05088 (1st Dept. 2012)
Interestingly, my view of the law when I handled Rogy v. Mercury became the law in the First Department. Perhaps, this is more of an academic issue in light of the fact that most of these electronic signatures now contain the appropriate language stating that it was placed at the request of the signor.
Here are the highlights:
“State Technology Law § 304(2) provides that “unless specifically provided otherwise by law, an electronic signature may be used by a person in lieu of a signature affixed by hand. The use of an electronic signature shall have the same validity and effect as the use of a signature affixed by hand” (see Wen Zong Yu v Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., 34 Misc 3d 32 ; People v Johnson, 31 Misc 3d 145; Alpha Capital Anstalt v Qtrax, Inc., 26 Misc 3d 1234). CPLR 2106, which provides for affirmations by attorneys, physicians, osteopaths and dentists does not specifically provide that an electronic signature may not be used and that the signature may only be affixed by hand.
In Naldi v Grunberg (80 AD3d 1,12 , lv denied 16 NY3d 711 ), we held that the Legislature “appear to have chosen to incorporate the substantive terms of E-SIGN into New York state law.” Notably, E-SIGN provides that where a statute requires a signature to be notarized, acknowledged, verified, or made under oath, “that requirement is satisfied if the electronic signature of the person authorized to perform those acts, together with all other information required to be included … is attached to or logically associated with the signature or record” (15 USC § 7001). In Naldi, we concluded that “E-SIGN’S requirement that an electronically memorialized and subscribed contract be given the same legal effect as a contract memorialized and subscribed on paper” is New York law. We therefore held that the terms “writing” and “subscribed” in General Obligations Law § 5-703 should be construed to include, respectively, electronic communications and signatures (80 AD3d at 12).
There is no sound reason to treat the term “subscribed” as used in CPLR 2106 any differently than it is used in the statute of frauds. The Second Department’s decision in Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v Travelers Ins. Co. (50 AD3d 778 ), upon which the motion court relied in concluding that the doctors’ reports were inadmissible, is unpersuasive, and we decline [*3]to follow it. In that case, the Court held that the reports containing the computerized, affixed or stamped facsimiles of the physician’s signature failed to comply with CPLR 2106 in that there was no indication as to who placed them on the reports, or any indicia that the signatures were authorized (see also Rogy Med. P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co., 23 Misc 3d 132). However, requiring such additional information imports a requirement not contemplated or included in either E-SIGN’s provision for signatures made under oath (see 15 USC § 7001), or State Technology Law § 304(2). Additionally, State Technology Law § 306 provides that in any legal proceeding where the CPLR applies, an electronic record or signature may be admitted into evidence pursuant to article 45 of the CPLR. Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the electronic signatures complied with CPLR 2106, that the affirmations of defendants’ medical experts were admissible and that the affirmations should have been considered by the motion court.”
Related Articles
- Peer hearsay and electronic signatures
- A signature placed at the direction of the signor
- Proof in opposition was insufficient to show a forgery
- Defective notarization
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 post, New York’s electronic signature laws and procedural requirements under both State Technology Law § 304 and CPLR 2106 may have been subject to legislative amendments or regulatory updates, particularly given evolving digital authentication standards and court procedural reforms. Practitioners should verify current electronic signature requirements and any recent court rules addressing digital affirmation procedures in litigation contexts.
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
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
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
Proving standing without an assignment?
Learn about proving standing in New York foreclosure cases without assignment. Key legal precedents and defense strategies for Long Island homeowners.
Jan 1, 2010
An interesting credit card case
This NY appellate case shows credit card companies must prove breach of contract and account holder assent, creating potential defenses for cardholders facing collection lawsuits.
May 3, 2016
2309(c) defect waived (again)
Court rules that missing authentication certificates for out-of-state notarized affidavits under CPLR 2309(c) is not a fatal defect when waived by opposing party.
Oct 29, 2013
Understanding CPLR 5019(a) Limitations: Why Courts Cannot Modify Judgment Amounts Based on Substantive Reasons
Expert analysis of CPLR 5019(a) limitations in NY civil practice. Mount Sinai decision on judgment modifications from experienced Long Island attorney.
Feb 12, 2011Common 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?
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.
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.
