Affirmations & Affidavits (CPLR 2106, 2309)
Affirmations after the 2024 and 2025 CPLR 2106 amendments, with historical notes on signer eligibility, notarization, conformity certificates and correcting defective papers.
49 articles from 2009–2019 · 3 current · 20 reviewed case notes · by Jason Tenenbaum
Start here
The explainer for this topic. Read it first; the articles below go deeper on single issues.
Current articles
Articles the firm treats as current: published since 2024, or older and re-checked against today's law. Most recently published or reviewed first.
- Understanding Affidavit and Translation Requirements in NY Employment Law Cases Reviewed Sep 12, 2026 · first published 2019
Watabe accepted English affidavits after Japanese-interpreted depositions. See what it decided and what CPLR 2101(b) still requires for translations.
- Electronic Signatures on Physician Reports Are Admissible in New York: Ramirez v Miah Reviewed Sep 12, 2026 · first published 2018
Ramirez accepted an electronically signed physician affirmation. Compare Vista's missing authorization and New York's electronic-signature statutes.
Reviewed case notes by year
Notes on decisions from earlier years that the firm has re-read against current law. Each note states when it was last reviewed and what has changed since.
2016
2013
2012
- Five Boro Psychological v GEICO: A Psychologist's Affirmation Fails Under CPLR 2106
- CPLR 2309(c) Certificate of Conformity: Not a Fatal Defect in New York Litigation
- When Insurance Defense Goes Wrong: Progressive’s Procedural Failures in Peer Review
- Improper Use of an Affirmation Cost Plaintiff Its Case: Understanding CPLR 2106 Requirements in New York
2010
- The trap called 2106
- The Minimum That an Affidavit Must Contain in New York
- The First Department's newest inconsistent position on 2309
- And this is why computerized range of motion testing is medically necessary – yet, not admissible.
- The CPLR 2106 Trap: Why Medical Practice Owners Must Avoid This Critical Procedural Error
Older archive
Case notes as they were written at the time. They have not been re-checked against later decisions, so treat them as history and confirm the current rule before relying on one.
2016 (6)
- Mailing affidavit is wrong
- Another arbitrator and master arbitrator get shamed for not following the law
- PL 210.45 verification is a sufficient affidavit
- Judicial notice v. CPLR 4518(c)
- Credit Card Collection Defense in New York: Proving the Cardholder Agreement and Assent
- Feigned Issues of Fact: When Conflicting Statements Cannot Defeat Summary Judgment in New York
2014 (4)
2013 (3)
2012 (6)
- Electronic signatures unconditionally accepted
- Certificate of acknowledgment can possibly(?) be cured nunc-pro-tunc
- Peer hearsay and electronic signatures
- So the newest 2309(c) case now holds that this statute is irrelevent
- A signature placed at the direction of the signor
- Proof in opposition was insufficient to show a forgery
2010 (5)
- More plaintiffs fail to rebut an insurance carrier’s medical utilization report
- The fifth time 2106 was invoked
- CPLR 2309 Compliance: Navigating Notarization Requirements in New York Litigation
- CPLR 2309 Requirements: Understanding Affidavit Attestation Rules from the Appellate Division, Second Department
- CPLR 2309 and the ability to submit new evidence in a reply
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between a CPLR 2106 affirmation and a CPLR 2309 affidavit?*
An affidavit is sworn before someone authorized to administer an oath; under CPLR 2309(a) that includes any person authorized to take acknowledgments of deeds, such as a notary public. An affirmation under CPLR 2106(a) is signed by the person under the penalties of perjury in the form the rule sets out, with no notary, and has the same force and effect as an affidavit or any other sworn statement. Law changed January 1, 2024: under CPLR 2106 any person, wherever located, may now affirm in place of an affidavit; the earlier rule limited affirmations to attorneys and licensed health professionals who were not parties.
When must I use a notarized affidavit versus an affirmation in New York?*
In a New York civil action you may now use an affirmation under CPLR 2106(a) almost anywhere an affidavit was required, including summary judgment papers under CPLR 3212(b), verifications under CPLR 3020(a) and bills of particulars. The rule excludes a deposition, an oath of office, and an oath that must be taken before a specified person other than a notary, which still require a sworn oath under CPLR 2309. Use the exact statutory form of words. Law changed January 1, 2024: under CPLR 2106 any person may affirm under penalty of perjury in place of an affidavit; the earlier rule limited affirmations to attorneys and licensed health professionals.
Can a court reject evidence submitted in the wrong format?
A court can decline to consider a statement that is neither sworn nor affirmed, because CPLR 3212(b) requires a summary judgment motion to be supported by affidavit of a person with knowledge of the facts, and CPLR 2106(a) gives an affirmation that force only when it is subscribed and affirmed to be true under the penalties of perjury in substantially the statutory form. Under CPLR 2001, however, the court may permit a mistake, omission, defect or irregularity to be corrected, or must disregard it if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced. Whether a defect is fatal is decided case by case, so use the statutory language exactly.
* The law on this point has changed. The answer states the change, its effective date, and which claims the earlier rule still governs. Answers reviewed against the statutes and decisions in force as of September 2026.