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.
2309 issue — Read Article →In-depth legal analysis from Attorney Jason Tenenbaum — covering court rulings, legal standards, and practical guidance on 2106 and 2309 under New York law.
Expert Analysis
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.
Read Our 2106 and 2309 Articles
Frequently Asked Questions
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.
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.
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.
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.
2309 issue — Read Article →
Court vacates master arbitration award for failing to consider IME report despite electronic signature, highlighting CPLR 2106 flexibility in no-fault cases.
Another arbitrator and master arbitrator get shamed for not following the law — Read Article →
Court accepts Penal Law § 210.45 verified statements as sufficient affidavits to raise factual issues, highlighting New York's antiquated approach to sworn statements.
PL 210.45 verification is a sufficient affidavit — Read Article →
Court clarifies distinction between judicial notice and CPLR 4518(c) for DOS records, finding uncertified printouts inadmissible despite government website sources.
Judicial notice v. CPLR 4518(c) — Read Article →
Court ruling on CPLR 2106 affirmations and prima facie requirements for no-fault insurance claims, including chiropractor limitations and 30-day payment rules.
2106 and a prima facie comment — Read Article →Need Legal Guidance?
Get a Free Case Evaluation
No fees unless we win. Available 24/7.
Expert witness qualifications and CPLR 2106 objection requirements in NY medical malpractice cases - Lopez v Gramuglia analysis of cross-specialty testimony standards.
Familiar theme on experts and 2106 — Read Article →
Court rules on certificate of conformity requirements for affidavits in default judgment motions, finding waiver of CPLR 2309(a) defects is permissible.
Certificate of conformity waived — Read Article →
Court of Appeals case on CPLR 2309(c) compliance for out-of-state affidavits in New York no-fault insurance litigation, establishing proper notarization standards.
Death knell to 2309(c) — Read Article →
Analysis of CPLR 2309(c) certificate of conformity requirements for out-of-state affidavits in New York no-fault insurance litigation and recent court decisions.
2309(c) – dead for now (maybe?) and the out of state insurer issue — Read Article →
Court ruling on no-fault insurance denial defects: minor errors in claim amounts don't invalidate NF-10 denials, peer review reports not required at time of denial.
The vague and conclusory denial again — Read Article →
Court rules that missing authentication certificates for out-of-state notarized affidavits under CPLR 2309(c) is not a fatal defect when waived by opposing party.
2309(c) defect waived (again) — Read Article →
Court allows Florida expert's affirmation despite CPLR 2106 non-compliance, highlighting differences in out-of-state practitioner requirements versus in-state licensing...
Failure to comply with 2106 is somewhat excusable — Read Article →
Critical analysis of CPLR 2106 expert report authentication requirements in NY litigation. Expert legal guidance for Long Island attorneys. Call (516) 750-0595.
Understanding CPLR 2106 Expert Report Requirements: Critical Analysis for Long Island Attorneys — Read Article →
NY appellate court rules certificate of acknowledgment defects in prenuptial agreements may be cured nunc pro tunc with proper evidence of contemporaneous execution.
Certificate of acknowledgment can possibly(?) be cured nunc-pro-tunc — Read Article →
New York's Second Department clarifies that missing CPLR 2309(c) certificates of conformity for out-of-state affidavits are not fatal defects in litigation.
May 2309(c) finally rest in peace. — Read Article →
Second Department rules that CPLR 2309(c) notarization defects are not fatal when corrective certification can be provided nunc pro tunc under CPLR 2001.
So the newest 2309(c) case now holds that this statute is irrelevent — Read Article →
New York CPLR 2106 affirmation requirements in personal injury cases. Learn how improper affirmations can cost plaintiffs their cases and technical compliance rules.
Improper Use of an Affirmation Cost Plaintiff Its Case: Understanding CPLR 2106 Requirements in New York — Read Article →
Three recent no-fault insurance cases demonstrate how plaintiffs consistently fail to provide adequate medical expert testimony to rebut insurance carriers' utilization reports.
More plaintiffs fail to rebut an insurance carrier’s medical utilization report — Read Article →
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum discusses his fifth successful challenge using CPLR 2106, preventing improper affirmations by corporate principals in litigation.
The fifth time 2106 was invoked — Read Article →
Learn about CPLR 2106 affirmation requirements in New York no-fault insurance cases and why affidavits are safer than affirmations for medical providers.
The trap called 2106 — Read Article →
New York's First Department demonstrates inconsistent application of CPLR 2309 certificate requirements for foreign affidavits, creating unpredictable outcomes for practitioners.
The First Department's newest inconsistent position on 2309 — Read Article →
New York courts require computerized range of motion tests to be properly affirmed by someone with personal knowledge to be admissible evidence in serious injury cases.
And this is why computerized range of motion testing is medically necessary – yet, not admissible. — Read Article →
Avoid the CPLR 2106 trap that destroys medical practice no-fault claims. Long Island & NYC legal defense against procedural errors. Call 516-750-0595.
The CPLR 2106 Trap: Why Medical Practice Owners Must Avoid This Critical Procedural Error — Read Article →
Navigate CPLR 2309 notarization requirements in NY litigation. Expert analysis of jurisdictional splits and compliance strategies. Free consultation - Call 516-750-0595.
CPLR 2309 Compliance: Navigating Notarization Requirements in New York Litigation — Read Article →
Learn about CPLR 2309 affidavit attestation requirements and when technical violations may be excused under CPLR 2001. Expert analysis from the Appellate Division Second...
CPLR 2309 Requirements: Understanding Affidavit Attestation Rules from the Appellate Division, Second Department — Read Article →
CPLR 2309 certificate of conformity requirements for out-of-state affidavits in New York civil litigation, including recent case law and practical implications.
CPLR 2309 and the ability to submit new evidence in a reply — Read Article →
Learn why New York courts reject improperly formatted medical evidence and how supplemental opposition papers cannot cure procedural defects in personal injury cases.
The Failure to Place Evidence in Proper Form Cannot Be Cured in a Supplemental Opposition — Read Article →
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.
Renewal Under Certain Circumstances May Be Granted to Correct an Improper Affirmation: A Comprehensive Guide to CPLR 2106 Requirements — Read Article →
Understanding the three types of appeals in New York personal injury practice. Strategic appellate guidance from experienced Long Island attorney Jason Tenenbaum.
2106 again… — Read Article →
Analyzing NY no-fault medical necessity challenges from Continental Medical v. Mercury Casualty case, examining CPLR 2106 affirmation defects and IME report requirements.
NY Medical Necessity Challenges: Continental Medical Case Analysis — Read Article →The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum publishes detailed legal analysis on 2106 and 2309 and related topics as part of an ongoing commitment to legal education and transparency. Since 2008, Attorney Tenenbaum has written over 2,353 articles examining how New York courts decide cases involving personal injury, no-fault insurance, employment discrimination, and complex litigation matters. Each article is based on an actual court decision and provides the kind of substantive analysis that practitioners and clients need to understand the current state of the law.
Attorney Tenenbaum brings over 24 years of New York litigation experience to every article. His practice spans Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He has handled thousands of cases involving insurance disputes, personal injury claims, and employment law matters, giving him a practical perspective that academic commentators often lack. The articles in this collection reflect that experience, offering readers insight into how judges actually apply legal standards in contested cases.
If you are dealing with a legal issue related to 2106 and 2309 or any topic covered on this blog, the firm offers free initial consultations by phone or in person. Call (516) 750-0595 to speak with an attorney, or visit the contact page to submit a case review request online. No fee is charged unless the firm recovers compensation on your behalf. The firm's six attorneys bring over 112 combined years of legal experience and speak English, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, and Russian, ensuring clients can communicate in the language they are most comfortable with. Attorney Tenenbaum is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts, and he has authored more than 2,353 published legal articles that attorneys, judges, and insurance professionals across the state rely on for guidance.
New York's legal framework for 2106 and 2309 matters involves an intricate web of statutes, regulations, and case law that has developed over decades. The state's court system — including the Civil Court, District Courts, Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Appellate Division, and Court of Appeals — each plays a distinct role in shaping how 2106 and 2309 cases are litigated and decided. Trial-level decisions in Nassau County Supreme Court, Suffolk County Supreme Court, and the New York City Civil Courts establish important factual precedents, while appellate rulings create binding legal standards that all lower courts must follow.
The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs procedure in New York civil litigation and contains provisions that directly impact 2106 and 2309 cases. CPLR Article 31 establishes the scope and methods of disclosure, including depositions under CPLR 3107, interrogatories under CPLR 3130, and document demands under CPLR 3120. CPLR 3212 provides the standard for summary judgment, requiring the movant to establish a prima facie case through admissible evidence and shifting the burden to the opponent to raise a triable issue of fact. CPLR 3215 governs default judgments, which require proof of service, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the amount due. Understanding these procedural tools is essential for anyone involved in 2106 and 2309 litigation in New York.
Statutes of limitations vary significantly depending on the type of claim. General negligence and personal injury claims carry a three-year deadline under CPLR 214(5). Medical malpractice claims have a shortened two-and-a-half-year deadline under CPLR 214-a. Claims against municipalities require a Notice of Claim within 90 days under General Municipal Law Section 50-e. No-fault insurance claims have their own regulatory deadlines, including the 30-day filing window for applications and the 45-day submission period for provider claims. Employment discrimination claims under the New York State Human Rights Law generally have a three-year statute of limitations, while federal Title VII claims require EEOC filing within 300 days.
The Appellate Term and Appellate Division regularly issue decisions that clarify and refine the legal standards applicable to 2106 and 2309 cases. The Second Department, which covers Long Island and parts of New York City, is particularly active in this area. Its decisions on evidentiary standards, burden-shifting frameworks, and procedural requirements directly affect how trial courts evaluate motions and how attorneys prepare their cases. Attorney Tenenbaum monitors these decisions and analyzes them in the articles on this page, providing practitioners with the timely legal commentary they need to stay current.
The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. is located at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746, centrally situated on Long Island to serve clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and the five boroughs of New York City. With over 24 years of experience and more than 1,000 appeals written, Attorney Tenenbaum combines deep legal knowledge with practical courtroom experience. If you need help with a 2106 and 2309 matter, call (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Successful outcomes in 2106 and 2309 cases often depend on procedural compliance as much as substantive merit. In no-fault insurance litigation, the prima facie case standard requires the plaintiff to submit admissible evidence establishing the claim was properly submitted, overdue, and unpaid. If the defendant raises a defense — such as an IME no-show, EUO non-appearance, lack of medical necessity, or fee schedule dispute — the burden shifts to the plaintiff to present evidence creating a triable issue of fact. Summary judgment motions under CPLR 3212 require the movant to make a prima facie showing through affidavits, deposition testimony, or documentary evidence, and the opposition must raise a genuine factual dispute to avoid dismissal.
In personal injury cases, the discovery process is governed by CPLR Article 31 and involves depositions of parties and witnesses, exchange of medical records under CPLR 3121 authorizations, physical and mental examinations, and expert disclosure. Once discovery is complete, either party may file a note of issue certifying readiness for trial, after which a 120-day deadline applies for filing summary judgment motions under CPLR 3212(a). Motion practice often determines the outcome of cases before trial, and understanding the specific evidentiary standards applied by courts in your jurisdiction is essential. The articles on this page analyze these standards in detail, drawing on real cases litigated by Attorney Tenenbaum and decisions from courts across the state.
The firm serves clients throughout Long Island, including the towns and villages of Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, and Massapequa, as well as all five boroughs of New York City. Attorney Tenenbaum regularly appears in Nassau County Supreme Court, Suffolk County Supreme Court, the New York City Civil Court, the American Arbitration Association, the Workers' Compensation Board, and the Appellate Term and Appellate Division of the Second Department. If you need legal assistance with a 2106 and 2309 matter or any topic discussed in these articles, call (516) 750-0595 for a free, confidential case evaluation.
The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. was founded in 2002 and has grown into one of Long Island's most respected personal injury, employment law, and insurance litigation firms. The firm's six attorneys — led by founding partner Jason Tenenbaum — bring over 112 combined years of legal experience to every case. The team speaks English, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, and Russian, ensuring that clients from diverse backgrounds can communicate in the language they are most comfortable with during what is often one of the most stressful periods of their lives.
Attorney Tenenbaum earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law and is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York. He has written more than 1,000 appellate briefs, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million in verdicts and settlements for injured individuals and workers throughout Long Island and New York City. His 2,353+ published legal articles on New York case law make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state, and his analysis is relied upon by attorneys, judges, and insurance professionals across all four Appellate Division departments.
The firm operates on a contingency fee basis for personal injury and employment discrimination cases, which means clients pay no attorney fees unless the firm recovers compensation on their behalf. Every consultation is free, confidential, and without obligation. The firm's centrally located Huntington Station office provides convenient access to Nassau County Supreme Court in Mineola, Suffolk County Supreme Court in Riverhead, the Nassau County District Court, Suffolk County courts in Central Islip, and the New York City Civil Court. Whether you need help with a car accident claim, a workplace discrimination complaint, a no-fault insurance denial, a workers' compensation dispute, or any other legal matter, the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. is ready to fight for your rights.
Questions About 2106 and 2309?
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has been writing about 2106 and 2309 since 2008, drawing on 24+ years of practice. Get a free, confidential case evaluation.
No fees unless we win · Available 24/7 · Hablamos Español
Injured? Don't Wait.
Get Your Free Case Evaluation Today
No fees unless we win — available 24/7 for emergencies.