On November 25, 2024, the Court of Appeals issued a decision in Knight v. New York & Presbyt. Hosp., 2024 NY Slip Op. 05870, holding that the authenticity of a contract may be established by circumstantial evidence, explaining:
[T]he party moving for a change of venue under CPLR 501 is in effect seeking to enforce a contractual provision. For that reason, we agree with the majority below that, when put in issue, the proponent of the motion bears the initial burden to establish the authenticity of the writing for purposes of a motion to enforce a contractual venue provision. This may be done through any of the recognized methods of authentication, including, but not limited to, the testimony of a witness who was present at the time of the signing, an admission of authenticity, proof of handwriting, and, as particularly relevant here, through circumstantial evidence.
. . .
On this record, Dewitt came forward with sufficient circumstantial evidence of authenticity. Once that showing was made, the burden shifted to plaintiff to show why the venue selection provision should not be enforced. To do so here, plaintiff was then required to produce evidence sufficient to establish a genuine issue of fact regarding the authenticity of decedent’s signatures. Although an expert opinion is not required to raise an issue of fact as to forgery, the movant must nevertheless offer something more than a bald assertion, and in this regard conclusory or self-serving affidavits are inadequate . . . .
In sum, when the authenticity of a document is put in issue on a motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR article 5, the party relying on the document has the initial burden of establishing its authenticity. Here, Dewitt met that burden. Plaintiff in turn failed to establish a triable issue of fact as to whether the signatures were forged.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).