Key Takeaway
New York's First Department continues its inconsistent approach to CPLR 2309 certificate of conformity requirements, allowing technical defects to be corrected nunc pro tunc.
This article is part of our ongoing 2106 and 2309 coverage, with 31 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.
Certificate of Conformity Requirements: Another Lenient Ruling
New York’s CPLR 2309 requires foreign documents to be accompanied by a certificate of conformity to be admissible in court proceedings. This technical requirement has been the subject of numerous appellate decisions, with courts taking varying approaches to enforcement. The First Department’s treatment of these procedural requirements has been particularly inconsistent over the years, sometimes strictly enforcing the rule while other times allowing substantial flexibility.
The recent Donsimoni v Fall decision exemplifies the court’s continued willingness to excuse technical deficiencies in foreign document authentication. This case involved an affidavit of merit from a foreign expert that was properly notarized by U.S. Embassy officials but lacked the required certificate of conformity under CPLR 2309.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Donsimoni v Fall, 2017 NY Slip Op 07092 (1st Dept. 2017)
“The fact that plaintiff’s lone affidavit of merit in opposition to defendant’s summary judgment was acknowledged by a vice-consul in the U.S. Embassy in Paris, France, yet was submitted without a requisite certificate of conformity (see CPLR 2309; Real Property Law § 301, et seq.), constituted an irregularity that could be corrected nunc pro tunc, if necessary (see DaSilva v KS Realty, L.P., 138 AD3d 619 ; Gyamfi v Citywide Mobile Response Corp., 146 AD3d 612 )….”
It is amazing that the Court actually countenanced the certificate of conformity argument in the first place.
Key Takeaway
The First Department’s decision reflects its ongoing liberal approach to CPLR 2309 compliance issues. Rather than strictly enforcing technical requirements that could exclude otherwise reliable foreign documents, the court continues to allow these procedural deficiencies to be remedied after the fact through nunc pro tunc corrections.
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.
31 published articles in 2106 and 2309
Keep Reading
More 2106 and 2309 Analysis
2309 issue
New York's First Department rules that lack of CPLR 2309 certificate of conformity for out-of-state affidavits is not fatal and can be corrected later.
Mar 25, 2017Another arbitrator and master arbitrator get shamed for not following the law
Court vacates master arbitration award for failing to consider IME report despite electronic signature, highlighting CPLR 2106 flexibility in no-fault cases.
Oct 4, 2016The First Department's newest inconsistent position on 2309
New York's First Department demonstrates inconsistent application of CPLR 2309 certificate requirements for foreign affidavits, creating unpredictable outcomes for practitioners.
May 2, 2010Renewal Under Certain Circumstances May Be Granted to Correct an Improper Affirmation: A Comprehensive Guide to CPLR 2106 Requirements
Learn how CPLR 2106 affirmation defects can be corrected through renewal motions in NY litigation. Expert guide for Long Island attorneys on procedural requirements and remedies.
Dec 5, 2009Certificate of conformity waived
Court rules on certificate of conformity requirements for affidavits in default judgment motions, finding waiver of CPLR 2309(a) defects is permissible.
Nov 20, 2014Certificate of acknowledgment can possibly(?) be cured nunc-pro-tunc
NY appellate court rules certificate of acknowledgment defects in prenuptial agreements may be cured nunc pro tunc with proper evidence of contemporaneous execution.
Jun 18, 2012Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between a CPLR 2106 affirmation and a CPLR 2309 affidavit?
A CPLR 2106 affirmation can be signed by an attorney, physician, dentist, or podiatrist without notarization — the affirmant simply affirms under penalty of perjury. A CPLR 2309 affidavit requires a notary public or authorized officer to administer an oath. Using the wrong form can result in a court rejecting the submission.
When must I use a notarized affidavit versus an affirmation in New York?
Licensed attorneys, physicians, dentists, and podiatrists may use unsworn affirmations under CPLR 2106. All other individuals must use notarized affidavits under CPLR 2309. In no-fault litigation, this distinction frequently arises when submitting medical evidence or opposing summary judgment motions.
Can a court reject evidence submitted in the wrong format?
Yes. Courts routinely reject affidavits and affirmations that do not comply with CPLR 2106 or 2309. An improperly sworn document may be treated as a nullity, which can be fatal to a motion for summary judgment or opposition. Proper formatting is a critical procedural requirement in New York practice.
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 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.