§ 3012-a.Certificate of merit in medical, dental and podiatric malpractice actions.

Article 30. Remedies and Pleading · Last amended 1987 · Last verified July 21, 2026

In one sentenceCPLR 3012-a requires the plaintiff's attorney in a medical, dental, or podiatric malpractice case to file a certificate confirming a qualified professional was consulted and a reasonable basis for the suit was found, or to explain why that consultation could not happen before filing.

Full Text of CPLR 3012-a

Text sizeJump to: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

(a) In any action for medical, dental or podiatric malpractice, the complaint shall be accompanied by a certificate, executed by the attorney for the plaintiff, declaring that:

(1) the attorney has reviewed the facts of the case and has consulted with at least one physician in medical malpractice actions, at least one dentist in dental malpractice actions or at least one podiatrist in podiatric malpractice actions who is licensed to practice in this state or any other state and who the attorney reasonably believes is knowledgeable in the relevant issues involved in the particular action, and that the attorney has concluded on the basis of such review and consultation that there is a reasonable basis for the commencement of such action; or

(2) the attorney was unable to obtain the consultation required by paragraph one of this subdivision because a limitation of time, established by article two of this chapter, would bar the action and that the certificate required by paragraph one of this subdivision could not reasonably be obtained before such time expired. If a certificate is executed pursuant to this subdivision, the certificate required by this section shall be filed within ninety days after service of the complaint; or

(3) the attorney was unable to obtain the consultation required by paragraph one of this subdivision because the attorney had made three separate good faith attempts with three separate physicians, dentists or podiatrists, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph one of this subdivision to obtain such consultation and none of those contacted would agree to such a consultation.

(b) Where a certificate is required pursuant to this section, a single certificate shall be filed for each action, even if more than one defendant has been named in the complaint or is subsequently named.

(c) Where the attorney intends to rely solely on the doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur”, this section shall be inapplicable. In such cases, the complaint shall be accompanied by a certificate, executed by the attorney, declaring that the attorney is solely relying on such doctrine and, for that reason, is not filing a certificate required by this section.

(d) If a request by the plaintiff for the records of the plaintiff’s medical or dental treatment by the defendants has been made and such records have not been produced, the plaintiff shall not be required to serve the certificate required by this section until ninety days after such records have been produced.

(e) For purposes of this section, and subject to the provisions of section thirty-one hundred one of this chapter, an attorney who submits a certificate as required by paragraph one or two of subdivision (a) of this section and the physician, dentist or podiatrist with whom the attorney consulted shall not be required to disclose the identity of the physician, dentist or podiatrist consulted and the contents of such consultation; provided, however, that when the attorney makes a claim under paragraph three of subdivision (a) of this section that he was unable to obtain the required consultation with the physician, dentist or podiatrist, the court may, upon the request of a defendant made prior to compliance by the plaintiff with the provisions of section thirty-one hundred of this chapter, require the attorney to divulge to the court the names of physicians, dentists or podiatrists refusing such consultation.

(f) The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to a plaintiff who is not represented by an attorney.

(g) The plaintiff may, in lieu of serving the certificate required by this section, provide the defendant or defendants with the information required by paragraph one of subdivision (d) of section thirty-one hundred one of this chapter within the period of time prescribed by this section.

End

Plain-English Summary

Malpractice suits against doctors, dentists, and podiatrists carry real stakes for professionals whose licenses and reputations are on the line, and CPLR 3012-a builds in an early check against filing one without any grounding. The complaint in such a case must come with a certificate, signed by the plaintiff's attorney, and the attorney has to choose one of three things to certify.

The usual route is certifying that the attorney reviewed the facts, consulted with at least one physician, dentist, or podiatrist licensed in New York or elsewhere who the attorney reasonably believes is knowledgeable about the issues involved, and concluded from that review and consultation that the action has a reasonable basis. When time doesn't allow for that step before filing — because the statute of limitations would otherwise expire — the attorney can certify that instead, and the real certificate has ninety days after the complaint is served to follow. And if the attorney tried, in good faith, to consult three separate qualified professionals and none would agree to consult, the attorney can certify that instead of the underlying opinion itself.

Only one certificate is required per action, even if more than one defendant is named or added later. If the attorney intends to rely entirely on res ipsa loquitur, the section doesn't apply in its usual form — the attorney instead files a certificate saying so. And if the plaintiff requested treatment records that haven't been produced, the deadline to serve the certificate is pushed back to ninety days after the records finally arrive.

The statute also protects the process from becoming its own discovery fight. The identity of the consulted professional and the substance of that consultation don't have to be disclosed, except that if the attorney claims no professional would agree to a consultation, the court can require the attorney to name the ones who declined, if a defendant asks before certain disclosure requirements are met. None of this applies to a plaintiff who isn't represented by an attorney, and a plaintiff may choose to give the defendant specified information about the case instead of serving the certificate.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a certificate of merit in a New York medical malpractice case?

It's a certificate the plaintiff's attorney must file with the complaint, confirming that a qualified physician, dentist, or podiatrist was consulted and that the attorney concluded there is a reasonable basis for the action.

Do I need an expert consultation before filing a malpractice complaint in New York?

Generally yes, unless the statute of limitations would run out before consultation is possible, or the attorney made three separate good-faith attempts to consult and no professional agreed.

What happens if the statute of limitations is about to run before I can consult an expert?

The attorney can certify that the time limit forced filing before consultation was possible, and then has ninety days after the complaint is served to file the certificate that would otherwise have been required.

Do I need a separate certificate of merit for each defendant in a malpractice suit?

No. CPLR 3012-a requires only a single certificate for each action, even if more than one defendant is named or later added.

Is a certificate of merit required if I represent myself in a malpractice case?

No. The section states its provisions do not apply to a plaintiff who is not represented by an attorney.

Does relying on res ipsa loquitur change the certificate of merit requirement?

Yes. If the attorney intends to rely solely on res ipsa loquitur, the usual certificate isn't required; instead the attorney files a certificate stating that reliance and explaining why no other certificate is being filed.

Amendment History

Add, L 1986, ch 266, § 2, eff July 8, 1986; amd, L 1987, ch 507, § 1, eff July 30, 1987.

Source & verification. Provision text, History, and Advisory Committee Notes are reproduced verbatim from the Consolidated Laws of New York. Last verified July 21, 2026. · Official source

Also known as: certificate of merit medical malpractice New Yorkexpert consultation malpractice complaint NYattorney certification malpractice lawsuitres ipsa loquitur certificate of meritpodiatric dental malpractice certificate requirement