2309 issue

Court Affirms Flexibility in CPLR 2309 Certificate Requirements

New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) Section 2309 requires that affidavits made outside New York State include a certificate of conformity, verifying that the affidavit was properly executed according to the laws of the state where it was made. This technical requirement has been a source of confusion and litigation, with courts sometimes taking rigid positions that exclude otherwise valid evidence due to missing certificates.

The procedural landscape for out-of-state affidavits has evolved significantly over the years. The First Department has previously taken inconsistent positions on 2309 requirements, creating uncertainty for practitioners handling cases with multi-jurisdictional elements. This uncertainty has extended beyond simple affidavit issues to broader questions about compliance with procedural requirements in New York litigation.

The recent decision in American Casualty Company of Reading, Pa. v Motivated Security Services provides welcome clarity on this procedural issue, demonstrating the court’s willingness to prioritize substance over technical formalities.

CPLR 2309 Certificate Requirements

CPLR 2309 establishes a two-pronged requirement for affidavits executed outside New York. First, the affidavit must be properly sworn or affirmed before an authorized official in the jurisdiction where executed. Second, the affidavit must be accompanied by a certificate of conformity—a separate statement from a qualified person attesting that the affidavit was executed in accordance with the laws of that jurisdiction.

The certificate requirement serves an important evidentiary purpose: ensuring that out-of-state affidavits meet threshold reliability standards comparable to those required within New York. However, the statute does not specify the consequences of failing to include this certificate, creating interpretive questions about whether such omissions are fatal defects or merely irregularities subject to correction.

Out-of-State Affidavit Authentication Standards

The authentication requirements for out-of-state affidavits exist within a framework that balances procedural regularity against practical necessity. New York courts routinely rely on affidavits executed in other jurisdictions, particularly in commercial litigation and cases involving multiple parties across state lines. Rigid enforcement of technical requirements could exclude probative evidence and impede efficient case resolution.

Different jurisdictions maintain varying standards for affidavit execution. Some states require specific language, particular notarial seals, or detailed authentication procedures. CPLR 2309’s certificate requirement addresses this variability by requiring confirmation that local law was followed, without imposing New York’s specific procedural requirements on other states’ practices.

The tension arises when affidavits are otherwise properly executed under the laws of the state where made, but the accompanying certificate is missing or defective. Courts must determine whether to exclude potentially reliable evidence based on the absence of documentation confirming what may be readily verifiable.

American Casualty Company Analysis

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. v Motivated Sec. Servs., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01970 (1st Dept. 2017)

“The motion court properly considered the out-of-state affidavit of SBF’s president, even though it lacks a certificate of conformity (CPLR 2309). The lack of such certification is not a fatal defect and the irregularity may be corrected later (see Matapos Tech. Ltd. v Compania Andina de Comercio Ltda, 68 AD3d 672, 673 ; CPLR 2001).”

The First Department’s analysis demonstrates a pragmatic approach to procedural defects. Rather than treating the missing certificate as grounds for automatic exclusion, the court characterized it as “not a fatal defect”—an irregularity capable of later correction. This distinction matters significantly in motion practice, where the exclusion of key affidavits can determine whether a party meets its prima facie burden or whether issues of fact exist to defeat summary judgment.

By citing Matapos Technology and CPLR 2001, the court situated this holding within the broader framework of New York’s liberal approach to curable procedural defects. The decision reflects judicial recognition that technical compliance should not override substantive merit when the defect can be remedied without prejudicing opposing parties.

CPLR 2001 Cure Provisions

CPLR 2001 grants courts broad discretion to excuse procedural irregularities “at any stage of an action.” The statute directs that courts may disregard mistakes, omissions, defects, and irregularities that do not affect substantial rights. This provision embodies New York’s commitment to deciding cases on their merits rather than technical procedural grounds.

Application of CPLR 2001 to missing CPLR 2309 certificates is particularly appropriate because the defect is readily curable. A party can obtain a certificate of conformity after the fact by having a qualified person in the relevant jurisdiction attest to the affidavit’s validity under local law. No substantive rights are affected by allowing this correction—the opposing party can still challenge the affidavit’s content, the affiant’s credibility, or the sufficiency of the authentication once properly supplemented.

Courts applying CPLR 2001 generally permit correction of certificate defects unless the opposing party demonstrates actual prejudice. The burden typically falls on the party seeking to exclude the affidavit to show that the defect cannot be cured or that substantial rights would be compromised by allowing correction.

Practical Implications for Practitioners

This flexible approach to CPLR 2309 compliance carries several practical implications. First, practitioners should not automatically assume that opposing affidavits lacking certificates will be excluded. Objections based solely on missing certificates may be unsuccessful if courts allow correction under CPLR 2001.

Second, parties submitting out-of-state affidavits should proactively include certificates of conformity to avoid unnecessary motion practice and potential delays. Even though courts may permit later correction, prudent practice involves complying with certification requirements initially rather than relying on judicial discretion to excuse defects.

Third, when opposing parties do submit affidavits without proper certificates, counsel should assess whether the defect is truly dispositive or whether other substantive challenges to the affidavit’s content provide stronger grounds for exclusion. Focusing exclusively on technical defects may prove counterproductive if courts simply allow correction while considering the affidavit’s substance.

Finally, the decision reinforces that New York courts distinguish between fatal jurisdictional defects and curable procedural irregularities. Missing certificates fall into the latter category, subject to correction without prejudicing substantial rights. This distinction should inform strategic decisions about which procedural objections merit emphasis and which are unlikely to succeed.

Key Takeaway

This decision reinforces that missing CPLR 2309 certificates of conformity should not automatically disqualify out-of-state affidavits from consideration. Courts can accept such affidavits and allow parties to cure the technical defect later, preventing the exclusion of relevant evidence based solely on procedural oversights. This approach aligns with CPLR 2001’s directive that courts should not dismiss cases for technical defects when substantial justice can be achieved.

---

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2017 post, CPLR 2309 certificate requirements and judicial interpretations may have evolved through subsequent court decisions and potential regulatory amendments. Practitioners should verify current First Department precedents and any updates to affidavit compliance standards, as procedural requirements for out-of-state affidavits continue to develop through case law.

Related Articles

• May 2309(c) finally rest in peace.
• 2309(c) defect waived (again)
• CPLR § 2309(c), Out-of-State Affidavits & Certificate Requirements in NY Courts