Key Takeaway
Quality Psychological: the former psychologist-affirmation restriction, deficient oath attestation, and why both summary judgment motions failed.
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.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Legal Update (September 2026): The expansion effective January 1, 2024 removed CPLR 2106’s former signer restrictions; the 2025 amendment revised the form and specified covered documents and exceptions.
Quality Psychological Services v New York Central Mutual, 38 Misc 3d 134(A) (2013) applied a signer restriction that has since changed. The psychologist’s peer review did not support the insurer’s motion, but the provider did not establish its own right to summary judgment either.
Two problems with the peer review
The provider objected to the report’s form. Under the former CPLR 2106, the psychologist could not use that professional affirmation procedure. The report also failed as sworn proof: a notary’s stamp and signature appeared without an attestation that the psychologist had been sworn or appeared before the notary, contrary to the oath requirement addressed in CPLR 2309(b).
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.
The insurer did establish timely mailing of its denial. On the provider’s cross motion, proof of nonpayment alone did not establish the necessary defect in that denial. The appellate court left the insurer’s motion denied and took away the provider’s summary judgment. The ruling did not finally award either side the disputed benefits.
The profession-based restriction is historical
Current CPLR 2106 permits any person to use its subscribed perjury affirmation for covered statements. A psychologist can now use that procedure. The report still needs a proper affirmation and evidence sufficient for its intended use; a stamp alone is not a substitute for either.
Jason’s original comment
Jason’s original 2013 question follows. It records his reaction to the oath language, not a holding that an acknowledgment always substitutes for an oath.
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.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Can a psychologist verify their own expert report under CPLR 2106?
A: Yes, for a covered statement under current CPLR 2106. The psychologist restriction applied in Quality Psychological in 2013 is not the current rule. The report still needs a proper affirmation and adequate evidentiary support.
Q: What’s the difference between being “duly sworn” and simply having a notary stamp?
A: An administered oath is an act; a stamp alone does not establish it occurred. The 2013 report lacked the required attestation. A compliant CPLR 2106 affirmation is a separate available procedure today.
Q: What happens if an expert report is rejected for improper verification?
A: It may leave a party unable to meet its burden on that motion. In Quality Psychological, the insurer’s report failed, but the provider’s separate cross motion failed too. Correction depends on the governing procedure and record.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the CPLR 2106 affirmations and affidavits hub for the current procedure and its historical cases.
- Eagle Surgical: chiropractor peer reviews under the former rule
- New Millennium: oath defects beyond mere form
- McMullin: medical proof offered in an improper surreply
- New Way: apparent notarization before signing
For review of a particular document or motion record, contact the firm. This note is general information, not an assessment of a pending case.
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
Court has discretion to overlook absence of pleadings
New York courts have discretion to overlook missing pleadings in summary judgment motions when the record is sufficiently complete, per Washington Realty case.
Apr 30, 2013
Collateral estoppel does not preclude an arbitrator from ruling differently from another arbitrator on the same issue
New York Court of Appeals rules that collateral estoppel does not prevent arbitrators from reaching different conclusions on same issues in no-fault vs SUM arbitrations.
Oct 21, 2010
What do CPLR § 2309 and CPLR § 2106 have in common?
Crossbridge distinguishes an available exhaustion defense from admissible proof. Read the majority, dissent and later guidance on out-of-state affidavits.
Jul 8, 2009
Amendment of caption is allowable
Court ruling allows plaintiff to amend caption to correct corporate name misnomer, establishing no prejudice standard for such procedural corrections.
Dec 2, 2014Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions About This Topic
3 answers from the firm's New York personal-injury and employment-law practice. Click any question to expand.
Q: Can a psychologist verify their own expert report under CPLR 2106?
A: Yes, for a covered statement under current CPLR 2106. The psychologist restriction applied in Quality Psychological in 2013 is not the current rule. The report still needs a proper affirmation and adequate evidentiary support.
Q: What’s the difference between being “duly sworn” and simply having a notary stamp?
A: An administered oath is an act; a stamp alone does not establish it occurred. The 2013 report lacked the required attestation. A compliant CPLR 2106 affirmation is a separate available procedure today.
Q: What happens if an expert report is rejected for improper verification?
A: It may leave a party unable to meet its burden on that motion. In Quality Psychological, the insurer's report failed, but the provider's separate cross motion failed too. Correction depends on the governing procedure and record.
Was 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.
