Key Takeaway
Critical analysis of CPLR 2106 expert report authentication requirements in NY litigation. Expert legal guidance for Long Island attorneys. Call (516) 750-0595.
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.
Understanding CPLR 2106 and Expert Report Requirements in Long Island and New York City Litigation
When navigating complex personal injury and insurance litigation across Long Island and New York City, one of the most critical procedural requirements involves the proper authentication and submission of expert reports. The intersection of CPLR 2106 requirements with notarization procedures creates particular challenges for attorneys handling cases in Nassau County, Suffolk County, and throughout the five boroughs.
For residents of the greater New York metropolitan area dealing with insurance disputes, understanding how expert testimony and reports are authenticated can make the difference between a successful claim and a dismissed case. The procedural requirements for expert reports are not merely technicalities—they are essential safeguards that ensure the reliability and admissibility of professional opinions in court.
The Quality Psychological Services Decision: A Critical CPLR 2106 Analysis
Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50063(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“Defendant also submitted a peer review report of its psychologist, to which plaintiff objected in its opposing papers on the ground that the report was not in proper form. The Civil Court correctly held that the peer review report was not in admissible form because, pursuant to CPLR 2106, defendant’s psychologist could not affirm the truth of the statements contained therein (see Pascucci v Wilke, 60 AD3d 486 ) and while the peer review report contained a notary public’s stamp and signature, it contained no attestation that the psychologist had been duly sworn or that she had appeared before the notary public“
Do I read the “or” as meaning that it would be acceptable if the psychologist has given an acknowledgment, which was sworn to a notary? Isn’t an oath when you swear to the truth of something?
Just seems odd.
Understanding CPLR 2106: The Foundation of Expert Report Authentication
What is CPLR 2106?
CPLR 2106 governs the verification requirements for papers submitted in New York State courts. This rule is particularly crucial when dealing with expert reports, medical records, and professional opinions that form the backbone of personal injury and insurance cases throughout Long Island and New York City.
The Two-Pronged Problem in Quality Psychological Services
The Quality Psychological Services case illustrates two distinct but related problems with expert report submission:
Problem #1: Professional Limitation Under CPLR 2106
The court noted that the psychologist “could not affirm the truth of the statements contained therein.” This reflects a fundamental limitation on who can verify certain types of professional reports.
Problem #2: Insufficient Notarization
Even though the report contained a notary public’s stamp and signature, it lacked proper attestation that the psychologist had been “duly sworn” or had “appeared before the notary public.”
Frequently Asked Questions About Expert Report Authentication
Q: Can a psychologist verify their own expert report under CPLR 2106?
A: The Quality Psychological Services case suggests that there may be limitations on certain professionals’ ability to verify their own reports. The specific language “could not affirm the truth of the statements contained therein” indicates potential professional or statutory restrictions.
Q: What’s the difference between being “duly sworn” and simply having a notary stamp?
A: Being “duly sworn” requires the expert to take an oath before the notary, swearing that the contents of the report are true. A notary stamp alone, without evidence of the oath procedure, is insufficient under the Quality Psychological Services standard.
Q: What happens if an expert report is rejected for improper verification?
A: The report may be inadmissible as evidence, potentially weakening or destroying a party’s case. In some situations, courts may allow re-submission with proper verification if deadlines permit.
Get Expert Help with Your Procedural Challenges
If you’re facing a complex personal injury case, insurance dispute, or other litigation matter that requires expert testimony, don’t let procedural technicalities derail your case. The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum understands the intricate requirements of CPLR 2106 and other procedural rules that can make or break your claim.
Whether you’re in Nassau County, Suffolk County, or anywhere in the five boroughs of New York City, we’re here to ensure that procedural technicalities work for you, not against you.
Call (516) 750-0595 today for a consultation about your case. Don’t let improper expert report verification cost you the compensation you deserve.
Related Articles
- The CPLR 2106 Trap: Why Medical Practice Owners Must Avoid This Critical Procedural Error
- CPLR 2309 Compliance: Navigating Notarization Requirements in New York Litigation
- Renewal Under Certain Circumstances May Be Granted to Correct an Improper Affirmation: A Comprehensive Guide to CPLR 2106 Requirements
- CPLR 2309 Requirements: Understanding Affidavit Attestation Rules from the Appellate Division, Second Department
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 analysis of CPLR 2106 expert report requirements, there may have been amendments to authentication procedures, changes in notarization requirements, or updates to court rules governing the submission and form of expert reports. Practitioners should verify current CPLR 2106 provisions and any related procedural updates that may affect expert report admissibility requirements.
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
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
More on defective denials
Learn how defective insurance claim denials can be challenged in New York no-fault cases. Expert legal analysis of technical requirements and healthcare provider rights.
Mar 12, 2011
Plead it or lose
Learn why proper pleading is critical in New York personal injury cases. Expert analysis of the Weaver decision and strategic guidance for Long Island and NYC attorneys.
Jan 5, 2010
It really was not on consent
Court case about correcting order notation from "consent" to reflect actual oral argument in no-fault insurance provider lawsuit against Tri-State Consumer Insurance.
May 20, 2016
HIPPA does not apply to no-fault: New trial ordered.
Appellate court rules HIPAA doesn't prevent insurers from using medical records in no-fault cases, orders new trial after improper exclusion of evidence.
Nov 18, 2013Was 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 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.
