Key Takeaway
Ramirez accepted an electronically signed physician affirmation. Compare Vista's missing authorization and New York's electronic-signature statutes.
This article is part of our ongoing affidavits coverage, with 19 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.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Still current (September 2026): State Technology Law § 304(2) continues to give electronic signatures the effect of handwritten ones unless another law provides otherwise; the signature must still be adopted with intent to sign.
In Ramirez v Miah, 166 AD3d 690 (2d Dept 2018), the plaintiff’s physician had electronically signed an affirmed report. The Second Department rejected the lower court’s signature objection. The report helped raise factual issues about cervical and lumbar injuries, so the court reversed dismissal and denied the defendants’ motion.
Why Vista still belongs in the discussion
Vista Surgical Supplies v Travelers, 50 AD3d 778 (2d Dept 2008) involved facsimile signatures without evidence identifying who placed or authorized them. The reports also lacked the required subscription and affirmation. Ramirez cited Vista for comparison; it did not expressly overrule the case.
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.
State Technology Law § 302(3) makes the signer’s intent part of an electronic signature. Section 304(2) gives that signature the effect of handwriting unless another law provides otherwise. Preserve the signed report and evidence of the physician’s adoption of it. A signature image alone does not explain how it got there.
Keep signature form separate from medical proof
Current CPLR 2106 supplies the affirmation option for covered statements. It does not establish an expert’s qualifications or prove injury and causation. Ramirez was a ruling on the submitted evidence, not advance approval of every electronically generated report.
For present-day serious-injury claims, also check the governing statutory version. Laws of 2026, chapter 58, Part EE removed the 90/180 category for actions and proceedings commenced on or after May 26, 2026. Ramirez addressed permanent consequential and significant limitations of use. Its signature holding is not a complete statement of today’s serious-injury law.
Jason’s original comment
Jason’s 2018 comment captures his reaction to the signature ruling. Ramirez cited Vista for comparison; it did not expressly overrule it.
We have evolved from Vista.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
- CPLR 2106: current affirmation rules and historical affidavit cases
- Watabe: electronic signature on an English affidavit
- Five Boro: affirmation and oath defects
- Furtow: the form of an administered oath
- Simanovskiy: personal knowledge behind the test results
- Lopez: expertise and an unpreserved form objection
For review of a particular motion, keep the signed reports, supporting records, objections and court orders together and contact the firm. This historical note is general information, not an assessment of an individual 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.
Keep Reading
More Affidavits Analysis
Who is the attorney?
Civil Kings court case on attorney representation requirements and default judgment appeals in no-fault insurance litigation.
Feb 1, 2020
Understanding Affidavit and Translation Requirements in NY Employment Law Cases
Watabe accepted English affidavits after Japanese-interpreted depositions. See what it decided and what CPLR 2101(b) still requires for translations.
Jan 17, 2019
When an Affidavit Really Is Not an Affidavit: Caption and Attestation Defects in New York
New Millennium: an insufficient psychologist affidavit, limits of form-defect waiver, and the current fifteen-day rule under CPLR 2101(f).
Jul 14, 2011
Mailing affidavit is wrong
Court rejects medical supplier's affidavit claiming claim form was mailed before it was even created, highlighting the importance of accuracy in legal documentation.
Dec 22, 2016
Defective notarization
Clarke v Scottsdale: a curable conformity omission differed from a defective notarial attestation. The insurer's motion remained denied.
Nov 16, 2014
Peer hearsay and electronic signatures
Appellate court rules on peer review requirements and electronic signature validity in no-fault insurance disputes, clarifying evidence standards for medical necessity challenges.
May 25, 2012Was 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 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.
