New York Clarifies CPLR 2106 Affirmation Rule

Note: This article is for general informational and editorial purposes only. It is not legal advice, and anyone dealing with a live New York case should confirm the current rule, court-specific requirements, and procedural context before filing anything important. In other words, do not let a missing sentence turn your motion papers into expensive confetti.

New York civil practice has never been famous for giving lawyers fewer things to worry about. Yet the recent clarification to CPLR 2106 is one of those rare procedural updates that actually makes daily litigation more practical. The rule now confirms that an affirmation made under penalty of perjury can do more than replace a traditional notarized affidavit. In many New York civil matters, it may also stand in for certificates, responses to notices to admit, answers to interrogatories, verifications of pleadings, bills of particulars, and other sworn statements.

That may sound like a small drafting tweak, but for litigators, paralegals, claims professionals, business owners, medical experts, and ordinary court users, it is a very big deal. The clarification helps remove uncertainty that followed the earlier expansion of CPLR 2106, especially after New York allowed “any person” to use an affirmation in lieu of an affidavit. Translation: the notary is no longer the main character in every procedural drama.

What Is CPLR 2106?

CPLR 2106 is the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules provision governing an “affirmation of truth of statement.” Historically, it allowed certain people to submit written statements under penalty of perjury instead of sworn, notarized affidavits. For many years, that privilege was narrow. Attorneys admitted in New York and certain licensed medical professionals could use affirmations in limited situations, but most people still needed an affidavit signed before a notary.

The practical difference between an affidavit and an affirmation is simple. An affidavit is sworn before an authorized officer, usually a notary public. An affirmation is signed by the person making the statement and includes statutory language confirming that the statement is true under penalty of perjury. It is still serious. It is still evidence. It is still the legal equivalent of saying, “I understand this is not a casual group chat.”

How New York Expanded the Rule

New York’s path to the modern CPLR 2106 rule came in stages. The older version favored attorneys and selected health professionals. A later amendment allowed affirmations by people physically located outside the United States. Then, effective January 1, 2024, New York broadened the rule dramatically by allowing any person, wherever made, to submit an affirmation in lieu of an affidavit in a New York action.

That 2024 change was celebrated because it reduced the need to hunt down a notary for routine civil litigation filings. It was especially useful for clients traveling abroad, remote witnesses, busy executives, self-represented litigants, and anyone who has ever heard the sentence, “Our notary is out to lunch,” five minutes before an e-filing deadline.

But the 2024 language also created a question: if an affirmation could replace an affidavit, could it also replace other documents that traditionally required an oath or sworn verification? Courts and practitioners did not always read the rule the same way. That uncertainty mattered because New York civil practice contains many documents that rely on sworn statements, including verified pleadings, discovery responses, and bills of particulars.

What the Clarification Actually Says

The newer clarification to CPLR 2106 answers that question directly. The rule now states that the statement of any person, wherever made, subscribed and affirmed to be true under the penalties of perjury, may be used in a New York action with the same force and effect as:

• an affidavit;
• a certificate;
• a response to a notice to admit;
• an answer to interrogatories;
• a verification of a pleading;
• a bill of particulars; and
• any other sworn statement.

That list is the heart of the update. New York did not merely say, “Use affirmations where affidavits are required.” It gave lawyers and litigants a more complete procedural map. The rule now makes clear that affirmations may be used across a broader range of civil litigation documents, so long as the document fits within the rule and no separate law requires a different formality.

The Required CPLR 2106 Affirmation Language

The rule provides that the affirmation should be in substantially the following form:

The word “substantially” gives some breathing room, but this is not an invitation to freestyle. A vague line such as “I swear this is true” may not be enough. Likewise, language borrowed from federal practice under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 may be familiar, but New York state court practice has its own statutory wording. The safer approach is boring, precise, and effective: use the New York language.

Why the Clarification Matters

1. It Reduces Notary Bottlenecks

Before the expansion and clarification of CPLR 2106, a routine filing could become a scavenger hunt for a notary. Clients had to print documents, locate a notary, sign in person, scan the papers, and send them back. That process was inconvenient on a normal day and terrifying on a deadline day.

Now, in many civil litigation contexts, a properly drafted affirmation can replace the old affidavit workflow. This saves time, lowers costs, and improves access to the courts. It is not glamorous, but neither is a paper jam, and both can decide the mood of an entire afternoon.

2. It Helps Remote and Out-of-State Participants

Modern litigation rarely stays within one zip code. Witnesses move. Clients travel. Business records live in multiple states. Experts may be across the country. The clarified CPLR 2106 rule gives parties a cleaner way to obtain usable written statements without unnecessary notarization logistics.

For example, a corporate employee in California may need to provide factual support for a New York commercial case. Under the clarified rule, a properly worded New York affirmation may be enough for many civil litigation purposes. That can make the difference between filing on time and sending three increasingly desperate emails titled “URGENTsignature needed today.”

3. It Clarifies Verified Pleadings

Verified pleadings play an important role in New York practice. A verification confirms that the pleading is true, except as to matters stated on information and belief. The updated CPLR 2106 language now expressly includes a “verification of a pleading,” which removes a major area of uncertainty.

This matters in cases where pleadings must be verified, such as certain special proceedings or matters governed by specific statutory requirements. The clarification helps lawyers draft pleadings more confidently and reduces the risk that a court will reject a verification solely because it was made by affirmation rather than notarized affidavit.

4. It Covers Discovery Responses

The rule now expressly references responses to notices to admit and answers to interrogatories. That is significant because discovery responses often require formal confirmation. By allowing affirmations in these settings, CPLR 2106 helps streamline discovery without stripping away accountability.

A party answering interrogatories still must take the response seriously. The affirmation does not convert sworn discovery into casual commentary. It simply changes the method of formalizing the truth of the statement. The legal weight remains; the notary stamp may not.

5. It Helps Bills of Particulars

A bill of particulars can shape the factual boundaries of a New York case. Because the clarified rule expressly includes bills of particulars, practitioners have clearer authority to use affirmations instead of affidavits when verifying or supporting them, assuming no other rule or order requires a different method.

This is especially useful in personal injury, medical malpractice, commercial, and insurance-related litigation, where bills of particulars can become highly detailed. Anything that reduces unnecessary friction while preserving truthfulness is welcome. Litigation already has enough friction to power a small city.

What CPLR 2106 Does Not Do

The clarified rule is broad, but it is not magic. It does not abolish every oath, notary, acknowledgment, or formal signing requirement in New York law. The rule itself excludes depositions, oaths of office, and oaths required to be taken before a specified person other than a notary.

The statute also preserves the requirement that matrimonial agreements under the Domestic Relations Law must be acknowledged with the formality of a deed. That carve-out is important. If a document must be acknowledged like a deed, do not assume CPLR 2106 will rescue it. Some formalities survive because New York law enjoys keeping everyone humble.

Real estate conveyances, deed acknowledgments, deposition transcript procedures, and other special statutory contexts may still require traditional formalities. The best practice is to ask two questions before using an affirmation: first, is this a civil action document covered by CPLR 2106? Second, does another statute or court rule demand a specific oath, acknowledgment, or officer?

Common Drafting Mistakes to Avoid

Using Federal Language in New York State Court

Federal unsworn declarations under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 are familiar to many litigators. However, federal wording is not automatically the safest wording for New York state court filings. CPLR 2106 refers to penalties of perjury under the laws of New York and includes language about possible fine or imprisonment. A New York filing should track the New York statute.

Forgetting the Information-and-Belief Clause

The clarified form includes language for matters alleged on information and belief. That addition is particularly useful when the affirmation verifies a pleading. If a complaint, answer, or petition includes allegations based on information and belief, the affirmation should be drafted to match the nature of the document.

Leaving Out the Date or Signature

An affirmation is not complete without the basic mechanics: date, signature, and the required statutory statement. Courts tend to prefer documents that look like someone read the rule before filing them. This is a reasonable preference.

Using an Affirmation Where Another Law Requires More

CPLR 2106 is powerful, but it does not override every special statutory requirement. If another law requires an acknowledgment, a deposition oath, or execution before a specified officer, do not assume an affirmation will be enough.

Practical Examples of the Clarified Rule

Example 1: Motion Support

A plaintiff files a motion for summary judgment and needs a client statement confirming key facts. Instead of preparing a notarized affidavit, counsel may use a properly worded CPLR 2106 affirmation signed by the client. The affirmation should use the New York penalty-of-perjury language and should be based on personal knowledge.

Example 2: Verified Answer

A defendant must verify an answer. The clarified rule expressly includes verification of a pleading, so an affirmation may be used if drafted correctly. The affirmation should account for facts known personally and facts stated on information and belief.

Example 3: Interrogatory Answers

A party responds to interrogatories. Instead of arranging notarization, the party may affirm the truth of the answers under CPLR 2106. The response still carries legal consequences, including potential sanctions or penalties for false statements.

Example 4: Notice to Admit

A party serves a notice to admit, and the responding party must formally answer. The clarified rule expressly includes a response to a notice to admit, helping remove doubt about whether an affirmation can replace a notarized sworn response.

Example 5: Matrimonial Agreement

A spouse signs a matrimonial agreement that must be acknowledged in the form of a deed. CPLR 2106 does not eliminate that requirement. This is not the place to get creative. Use the required acknowledgment.

Why Lawyers Should Update Their Templates Now

The biggest practical lesson is simple: update your forms. Old affirmation templates may not include the full New York statutory language. Some may still use attorney-only wording. Others may rely on federal declaration language. Those templates should be reviewed before they cause trouble.

Law firms, government agencies, insurance companies, and corporate legal departments should update templates for motion affirmations, client factual statements, verified pleadings, discovery responses, bills of particulars, and certifications. The update is not difficult, but ignoring it can be costly. Procedure is the part of law that politely waits until the deadline to become exciting.

Experience-Based Observations: What This Change Feels Like in Real Practice

From a practical litigation workflow perspective, the clarified CPLR 2106 rule feels like New York finally admitted what everyone in modern practice already knew: notarization can be useful, but it is not always necessary for every truth-confirming document in a civil case. The old system often made simple things complicated. A witness could be completely willing to sign a truthful statement, but the filing would stall because the person was traveling, working late, caring for a child, or unable to find a notary nearby. The legal issue was ready; the stamp was not.

One common experience involves last-minute motion practice. A lawyer drafts a strong motion, the exhibits are ready, the memorandum is polished, and then one supporting affidavit is still unsigned because the client cannot get to a bank before closing. Everyone starts refreshing email like it is a courtroom slot machine. Under the clarified affirmation rule, that same client may be able to sign an affirmation under penalty of perjury from wherever they are, provided the document uses the correct New York language and fits within CPLR 2106. The substance matters more than the scavenger hunt.

Another real-world benefit shows up in cases involving businesses with employees in multiple states. A New York lawsuit may need a statement from an operations manager in Texas, a finance employee in New Jersey, or a records custodian in Florida. In the past, counsel often had to explain notarization requirements to people who were already confused about why a New York procedural rule had entered their Tuesday. The clarified rule makes that conversation easier. It does not remove seriousness; it removes unnecessary friction.

There is also a psychological benefit. When court users can complete filings without procedural obstacles that feel arbitrary, the system seems less mysterious. Self-represented litigants, small businesses, and individuals with limited time or resources may find the process more accessible. That does not mean litigation becomes easy. Litigation is still litigation; it will still bring deadlines, exhibits, objections, and at least one PDF named “final_final_revised_USE_THIS.pdf.” But it does mean one common barrier has been lowered.

At the same time, experience teaches caution. The easier a document is to sign, the easier it is to underestimate it. An affirmation under CPLR 2106 is not a casual note. It is a statement made under penalty of perjury. Lawyers should explain that clearly to clients and witnesses. The person signing should read the document, understand it, confirm the facts, and avoid guessing. Convenience should never become carelessness.

The best practical habit is to treat CPLR 2106 as both a time-saver and a compliance tool. Use the statutory language. Confirm the document type. Check whether a special statute requires an acknowledgment or oath before a particular officer. Make sure the signer has personal knowledge where required. Keep the tone formal. Date it. Sign it. File it. Then enjoy the rare procedural pleasure of not chasing a notary across three boroughs and a lunch break.

Conclusion: A Small Rule With a Big Practical Impact

The clarification of the New York CPLR 2106 affirmation rule is more than a technical edit. It modernizes New York civil practice by confirming that properly drafted affirmations can replace a wider range of sworn documents, including affidavits, certificates, discovery responses, pleading verifications, and bills of particulars.

The rule gives lawyers and litigants more flexibility, reduces notary-related delays, and brings New York practice closer to the practical realities of remote work, electronic filing, and multi-state litigation. Still, it must be used carefully. The right language matters. The exceptions matter. The context matters. CPLR 2106 is helpful, but it is not a procedural invisibility cloak.

For anyone handling New York civil litigation, the message is clear: update your templates, train your team, and stop treating notarization as the default answer when a proper CPLR 2106 affirmation will do. The notary is not gone forever, but in many civil filings, the notary has officially been moved from starring role to occasional guest appearance.