It is not clear to me exactly how the OP allegedly signed this contract. It appears that the OP sent a photograph of his/her signature to the other party, but it's not clear whether that means he or she signed the contract by hand and then sent a photographed copy of the contract to the other party or something. The details matter. In a case in which the defendant did electronically sign e-mails to plaintiff but held that the attached scanned side agreement in which the name was typed as a signature was not electronically signed per the Electronic Signatures and Records Act (ESRA) and thus failed to meet the statute of frauds. The court held the following:
Under ESRA, plaintiff would have a viable argument that defendant signed the emails she sent, as they are electronic records and she typed her name at the end of each. As confirmed at oral argument, however, plaintiff does not contend that the emails constituted signed documents forming the contract, but that defendant's typed name at the end of the proposed side letter constituted her signature. That document was separately typed and attached to emails for transmission. Although emails are electronic records, not every attachment to an email qualifies as an electronic record under ESRA. One of the purposes of ESRA is "to promote the use of electronic technology in the everyday lives and transactions" of government entities, businesses and average citizens (L 2002, ch 314, § 1, 2002 McKinney's Session Laws of NY, at 1034 [statement of legislative intent]; see Letter from William Pelgrin, Counsel of Office for Technology, Aug. 19, 1999, Bill Jacket, L 1999, ch 4 at 32–33). To fulfill this purpose, it was necessary for the Legislature to permit emails to be considered equivalent to signed writings when that was the sender's intent (see Naldi v. Grunberg, 80 A.D.3d at 11–13, 908 N.Y.S.2d 639), because it was not possible to place a handwritten signature on an email or similar electronic record that was being transmitted electronically.
The same logic does not apply to ordinary typed documents that are scanned and attached to emails, because a party could easily affix a handwritten signature to those documents. Indeed, defendant provided a signature line for plaintiff on the proposed side letter and requested that plaintiff's representative sign it to acknowledge acceptance of her conditions. The record demonstrates that plaintiff's representative must have printed a copy of the proposed side letter and endorsed it with his handwritten signature, then scanned and emailed the signed copy to defendant. That ordinary letter did not transform into an electronic record simply by virtue of its attachment to an electronic record (i.e., defendant's email), revert to a non-electronic record when printed and signed, then transform into an electronic record again when the signed copy was scanned and attached to a new email. In sum, the record does not demonstrate that the proposed side letter, itself, was an electronic record.
Defendant typed her name to the proposed side letter but did not sign it, although affixing her signature would have been easy and she requested that plaintiff affix an actual signature to it. Thus, even though that letter was attached to an email, we reject plaintiff's argument that defendant's typed name at the bottom of the letter constituted a signature. Because no document was signed by defendant, the alleged contract—assuming one was ever formed—did not satisfy the statute of frauds and is void. As the claims against defendant were based on the alleged contract, defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against her.
Solartech Renewables, LLC v. Vitti, 156 A.D.3d 995, 999–1001, 66 N.Y.S.3d 704, 709–10 (2017).
So I believe that the exact details of what the OP did to allegedly sign this contract matter very much and disagree with your conclusion that what the OP did necessarily meets the requirements of the Act. But before delving into that subject, for which it may turn out there is no clear answer when all the details are revealed, I think it helpful to first determine if the contract was one that was required to be in writing in the first place. If the answer is no then it won't much matter whether the signature meets the ESRA.
