Background

• This is a personal injury case addressing whether a physician’s CPLR 2106 affirmation bearing an electronic signature complies with the statute.
• Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury.
• Defendants’ medical‑expert affirmations all bore electronic signatures.
• Plaintiff argued the electronic signatures rendered the affirmations inadmissible under CPLR 2106.
• The motion court did not initially address the CPLR 2106 electronic-signature issue; after reargument it held the affirmations inadmissible and vacated the prior summary judgment.
• The Court holds electronic signatures satisfy CPLR 2106 under State Technology Law § 304 and E‑SIGN incorporation, making the affirmations admissible and supporting dismissal of certain claims as to the 90/180‑day category.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Naldi v Grunberg, 80 AD3d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010) (incorporates E‑SIGN principles into NY law; writing/signature construed to include electronic forms)
• Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v Travelers Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) (rejected as controlling; earlier ruling relied on inadmissibility of unsigned/unclear signatures)
• Rogy Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co., 23 Misc 3d 132[A] (N.Y. Misc. 2009) (addressed electronic signatures; rejected import of extra attestations)
• Williams v Tatham, 92 AD3d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) (radiologist report with electronic signature cited as prima facie support for summary judgment)
• Naldi; (General context), — (—) (recognizes E‑SIGN incorporation into NY law (contextual to opinion))
• Wen Zong Yu v Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., 34 Misc 3d 32 (N.Y. Misc. 2011) (cited for electronic signature validity under 304(2) and E‑SIGN)