Red light camera tickets do not need to be notarized in order to establish prima facie liability In Matter of Monroe St. v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 00972, the plaintiff was issued a Notice of Liability (“NOL”) which stated that a red light camera observed him enter an intersection when the light was red. The plaintiff contested the NOL on the grounds that the technician certificate was not notarized and, therefore, was invalid pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111-a(d).The New York Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court, New York County dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification.The Appellate Divison stated that the plain intent and meaning of the “sworn to or affirmed” language of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111-a(d) is that the reviewing technician merely affirm, under penalty of perjury, the veracity of his statement. No notarization is necessary to comply with the legislation.The Court held that the plaintiff’s reliance on CPLR 2106 and 2309, which provide that only the professionals designated in CPLR 2106 can execute a sworn statement without notarization, was misplaced. The CPLR applies only in “civil judicial proceedings” (per CPLR 101). A “civil judicial proceeding” is “a prosecution, other than a criminal action, of an independent application to a court for relief.” CPLR 2106 and 2309 do not apply in administrative proceedings.