CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation

Last reviewed: September 2026.

CPLR 2106 lets any person, wherever located, use a signed affirmation under New York’s penalties of perjury in place of many sworn documents. It provides an alternative to an affidavit. It does not abolish notarization, excuse an unsigned statement or make every attachment admissible.

Legal Update (September 2026): The expansion effective January 1, 2024 removed the former signer restrictions; Laws of 2025, chapter 564 then specified covered documents and exceptions and revised the affirmation form.

What CPLR 2106 changed

The 2023 enactment, signed October 25, 2023, took effect January 1, 2024 for actions begun before, on or after that date. Earlier versions limited the domestic affirmation option to specified professionals who were not parties, alongside a separate provision for statements made outside the United States. Those restrictions explain many of the older cases below.

A witness does not now need to be a lawyer or physician to use the covered procedure. But the witness must subscribe and affirm the statement. The current statutory form reads:

I affirm this ___ day of ______, ____, under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, except as to matters alleged on information and belief and as to those matters I believe it to be true, and I understand that this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law.

(Signature)

Start with the current form. On a contested motion, the factual account and supporting records still have to meet the applicable evidentiary rules.

Latest developments

The 2025 amendment became effective November 21, 2025. It expressly covers certificates, responses to notices to admit, interrogatory answers, verified pleadings, bills of particulars and other sworn statements. It excludes depositions, oaths of office and oaths required before a specified person other than a notary. Subdivision (b) preserves the Domestic Relations Law’s requirements for acknowledging matrimonial agreements.

Matter of Sweet v Fonvil, 227 AD3d 849 (2024) is an early application of the broader rule. The Second Department accepted the petitioner’s verification in an election proceeding because it used the statutory affirmation language. The court was deciding the sufficiency of that verification.

Out-of-state affidavits still need attention

CPLR 2309(c) remains in the statute. If the submission uses an administered oath rather than the CPLR 2106 alternative, review the applicable certificate requirements.

Midfirst Bank v Agho, 121 AD3d 343 (2014) distinguishes conformity, concerning how the oath was administered, from authentication of the officer’s authority. The court found the certificate supplied sufficient and also explained why an omitted conformity certificate need not be fatal. The objection and any prejudice matter.

The Eastern Star decision illustrates a different record: a timely objection led to a conditional order requiring correction within 60 days after service of the order with notice of entry. That was the court’s condition in that case, not a general deadline for fixing affidavits.

Form does not supply the missing evidence

A business-record submission still needs the foundation required by CPLR 4518. Changing the signature block does not establish who made the records or how the business kept them.

Nor does correcting a document automatically reopen a ruling. In Coccia v Liotti, the court considered a corrected affidavit repeating the earlier assertions but rejected additional facts offered without justification. Schwelnus allowed renewal after transcript defects were corrected with reasonable justification. Read those decisions with CPLR 2221(e), not as permission to repair any losing motion later.

For personal injury litigation and no-fault defense, the question is often what a medical report, mailing record or witness statement actually establishes. Choose the form after identifying that evidentiary task.

Cases in this topic

These 46 notes, published from 2008 through 2020, record disputes under earlier versions of the rules. Read the signer-eligibility decisions against the amendments above. A case about a missing conformity certificate may say little about defective notarization or an acknowledgment; those issues are separated below. The dates are the original publication dates.

Former signer restrictions and medical proof

• Lopez: expert qualifications and an unpreserved form objection — 2015-11-11
• Quality Psychological: the former psychologist restriction — 2013-01-18
• Five Boro: a psychologist’s report under the former rule — 2012-06-18
• Eagle Surgical: peer-review form and opposing medical proof — 2012-02-03
• Radiology Today: signer eligibility and medical rebuttal — 2012-02-03
• Crotona: owner affirmations and separately disputed claims — 2010-11-27
• High Quality: the former owner-affirmation restriction — 2010-11-14
• Doshi: the former restriction on medical-practice owners — 2010-03-12
• St. Vincent: former signer restrictions and separate proof defects — 2009-04-30

Out-of-state oaths and conformity certificates

• Donsimoni: an affidavit sworn before a vice-consul — 2017-10-10
• American Casualty: a curable conformity omission — 2017-03-25
• Todd: an unopposed default motion and conformity — 2014-11-20
• Midfirst: conformity, authentication and summary judgment — 2014-08-20
• Flatlands and Toro: conformity and insurer jurisdiction — 2014-03-05
• Gonzalez: a missing certificate in the motion record — 2013-10-29
• Fredette: the missing certificate objection — 2012-05-17
• Dellarmo: correction of a conformity defect — 2012-04-08
• Green Fairway: exclusion of an out-of-state affidavit — 2010-05-02
• Eastern Star: a conditional cure for an out-of-state affidavit — 2010-01-15
• Betz: conformity and prejudice — 2010-01-10
• Matapos: conformity objections and evidence in reply — 2010-01-01
• Andromeda: out-of-state affidavits under the earlier procedure — 2009-08-14
• Crossbridge: exhaustion arguments and admissible proof — 2009-07-08

Notarization and execution dates

• New Way: an affidavit apparently notarized before signing — 2016-10-27
• Clarke: defects in the notarization itself — 2014-11-16
• Bonavera: drafting and notarizing on different dates — 2013-02-15
• New Millennium: caption and attestation defects — 2011-07-14
• Furtow: the statement and jurat in an affidavit — 2010-07-08

Electronic signatures

• Ramirez: electronic signatures under the State Technology Law — 2018-11-07
• Martin: electronic signatures on physician reports — 2012-06-27
• Alfa Medical: peer-review materials and electronic signatures — 2012-05-25
• Right Aid: a signature placed at the reviewer’s direction — 2012-03-12
• Manhattan Medical: an unexplained signature objection — 2011-07-08
• Park Slope: a properly raised signature dispute — 2010-04-21
• Ortho-Med: why the reply issue was not reached — 2010-04-11
• Amercure: a withdrawn publication — 2010-03-26

Correcting and supplementing papers

• Bacon & Seiler: corrected form and missing proof — 2020-07-23
• Cuevas: a clarifying affidavit in reply — 2018-08-23
• Loucks: conditional relief after a defective submission — 2013-07-07
• McMullin: medical reports offered in supplemental opposition — 2009-12-20
• Arkin: correcting expert-paper form on renewal — 2009-12-05
• A.M. Medical: defects in a prosecution demand — 2008-12-10

Knowledge and verified statements

• Gonzalez v Ayala: a verified statement and conflicting accounts — 2016-09-16
• Computerized ROM testing: the personal-knowledge foundation — 2010-04-23

Translation and matrimonial acknowledgments

• Watabe: an English affidavit and a translated deposition — 2019-01-17
• Galetta: the 2012 acknowledgment ruling, reversed in 2013 — 2012-06-18; see the Court of Appeals reversal, which found the attempted cure insufficient.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Use the Legal Encyclopedia to follow the evidence and motion-practice topics surrounding CPLR 2106.

• Quality Psychological: the earlier restriction on psychologist affirmations
• Andromeda: the older out-of-state affidavit problem
• Midfirst: conformity and authentication are different questions
• Todd: the significance of an unopposed default motion
• Arkin: correction of the original expert submission
• Coccia: corrected form versus unjustified additional facts
• Schwelnus: corrected transcripts and renewal
• Summary judgment: service and the motion deadline

Review a document or motion record

For a car accident, slip-and-fall or medical-malpractice case, keep the signed document, attachments, objections and any order concerning them. Read about Jason Tenenbaum’s firm and its practice areas, or request review of the record. This page is general information, not an assessment of whether a particular submission is sufficient.