On Nov. 21, 2025, Governor Hochul signed into law a further amendment to CPLR §2106 (Section 2106), which expands the use of affirmations in New York court actions “in lieu of and 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.”
The evolution of Section 2106 from a narrow, procedural shortcut into a comprehensive substitute for affidavits, verifications, and other sworn statements marks a significant modernization and streamlining of New York practice, with this new amendment reflecting the legislature’s intent to align more with federal practice while preserving New York’s own unique statutory requirements. These further changes to the law should facilitate greater access to New York courts irrespective of where a given party, representative, or witness may be located, including by reducing—at least in many cases – the need for notarized affidavits, the utility of which has been historically outweighed by the associated logistical hurdles.
Recent Amendments Attempt to Address Historical Limitations of Section 2106
Prior to a 2014 amendment, Section 2106 affirmations could only be used by certain nonparties to an action, including New York attorneys and certain licensed professionals. A further amendment, effective on Jan. 1, 2024, removed the longstanding restrictions on those who may make affirmations pursuant to Section 2106, thereby permitting any person, regardless of location or party status, to submit an affirmation of truth in a New York action “in lieu of and with the same force and effect as an affidavit.”
This amendment brought New York practice closer in line with 28 U.S.C. §1746, which permits unsworn declarations to substitute for notarized affidavits so long as the declaration is, among other things, made “under penalty of perjury.” This amendment also included a uniform statutory statement template for all affiants, including attorneys, licensed professionals, and parties:
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, and I understand that this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law.
The legislative intent behind the 2024 amendment recognized that having documents notarized “is unduly burdensome”, noting that federal law (e.g., 28 U.S.C. §1746) had removed such requirements decades ago, and that the amendment “will align New York with the over 20 states that follow federal practice” and “will relieve unnecessary burdens on litigants, non-party witnesses, county clerks, and courts.” Sponsor’s Mem., A.B. 5772 (N.Y. 2023). Notwithstanding the intent, there were early signs that some litigants were struggling to conform to the requirements of the new law and, ironically, creating more burden on the court system.
For example, various affirmations were rejected because they failed to incorporate the uniform statutory statement required by the 2024 amendment, causing serious consequences in some cases.
See, e.g., Grandsard v. Hutchison, 2024 WL 1957086, at *1 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2024), aff’d, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 02613 (1st Dep’t 2024) (refusing to consider a New York attorney’s affirmation in support of a petition because it merely affirmed that the attorney’s statements were made “under penalty of perjury” and did not comply with the new requirements of Section 2106 and that, as a result, the filed petition was unverified and therefore required dismissal); Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Am. Steamship Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass’n Inc., 228 A.D.3d 429, 429 (2024) (finding that the trial court properly denied awarding summary judgment where the affirmation filed in support of motion “did not contain the language required by CPLR 2106”); Tufo v. Port Chester Operating, LLC, 87 Misc. 3d 1248(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2025) (“Plaintiff’s opposition…is insufficient to raise an issue of fact… the affirmations of plaintiff’s counsel and plaintiff’s expert are not properly sworn because they do not substantially comply with the required language set forth in CPLR 2106.”).
Additionally, notwithstanding the 2024 amendment, ambiguity remained regarding the applicability of Section 2106 affirmations for, inter alia, verified pleadings, bills of particulars, and interrogatories. This ambiguity can be attributed to the amendment’s reference to affirmations having “the same force and effect as an affidavit,” while not explicitly addressing or amending the dozens of other CPLR provisions specifically referencing and/or requiring the filing of an “affidavit.” Dadey, Jr. v. Onondaga County Committee of the Conservative Party of NYS, 2024 WL 3865019, at *5 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 16, 2024) (“Unfortunately, the question of whether an affirmation can be used to verify a pleading was not addressed in the legislative amendment and has not yet been subject to appellate review.”); see Patrick M. Connors, CPLR 2106 Amendment: Affirmation in Lieu of Affidavit, Part 2, N.Y. L.J., Mar. 7, 2024, at 1 (issues concerning the 2023 amendment to Section 2106 are best summarized in two excellent articles by Professor Patrick M. Connors, published in the New York Law Journal on Febr. 28, 2024 and March 7, 2024).
While the Second Department attempted to resolve the ambiguity by upholding a petition verified via Section 2106, some practitioners continued to encounter rejections by county clerks of pleadings verified with a Section 2106 affirmation. Sweet v. Fonvil, 227 A.D.3d 849, 851–852, leave to appeal denied, 41 N.Y.3d 906 (2d Dep’t 2024); see Patrick M. Connors, THE BLOCKBUSTER AMENDMENT TO CPLR 2106 PERMITTING ANY PERSON TO SUBMIT AN AFFIRMATION IN LIEU OF AN AFFIDAVIT, 98 ST. JOHN’S L. REV. 375, 391 (2024).
The 2025 Amendment
The 2025 amendment was introduced by Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, notably “at [the] request of the Unified Court System”. The 2025 amendment continues to apply to “[t]he statement of any person wherever made, subscribed and affirmed by that person to be true under the penalties of perjury”, but clarifies that it does not apply to a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified person other than a notary.
The 2025 amendment also retains the prior language that an affirmation “may be used in an action in New York in lieu of and with the same force and effect as an affidavit” while, critically, extending affirmation usage to “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.” While the enumerated examples now expressly incorporated in the statute clarify some of the ambiguity that continued to exist following the 2024 amendment, it is likely that the key language that courts and litigants will need to navigate going forward is the potential catch-all language: “any other sworn statement.”
Notably, the new amendment explicitly states that “[n]othing in this rule shall be construed to eliminate any requirement under the domestic relations law that matrimonial agreements must be acknowledged in the form of deed.” The inclusion of such an express carve-out likely will be used by parties to argue that “any other sworn statement” should be interpreted as broadly as possible, though the specific contexts in which this may arise and how New York courts ultimately come out on such issues obviously remains to be seen.
The 2025 amendment also adds the below emphasized language to the uniform statutory statement template:
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.
While this change facially reduces the need for affiants—whether they are attorneys, party representatives, or other professionals—to have direct, first-hand knowledge of all facts set forth in the affirmation, it is critically important that all affiants recognize that they continue to be subject to penalties of perjury in the making of such statements within an affirmation.
Best Practices Following the 2025 Amendment
For practitioners, the takeaways based on these recent amendments and the cases interpreting them are simple but critical:
- While the statute provides that the affirmation “shall be in substantially” the form of the statutory text, it is best to adopt the text verbatim, and not to paraphrase, shorten, or alter the statutory text for any affirmations, as such modifications may result in a rejection of the affirmation, leading to potentially case-dispositive consequences.
- If applicable, do not rely on previous affirmation templates; be sure to revise any affirmation templates to ensure that the updated statutory language is being used.
- Exhibit caution if the affirmation you seek to file falls outside of the explicitly authorized uses (e.g., a verification of a pleading) and instead falls—at least potentially—within the “catch-all” category in Section 2106 of “any other sworn statement”; when in doubt, continue to use affidavits instead of affirmations.