business record exception in New York

2025"To constitute a business record exception to the hearsay rule, the proponent of the record must first demonstrate that it was within the scope of the entrant's business duty to record the act, transaction or occurrence sought to be admitted" ( Matter of Leon RR , 48 NY2d 117, 122 ; see CPLR 4518[a]; Matter of James M.B. [Claudia H.] , 155 AD3d 1027, 1030 ).

2025"To constitute a business record exception to the hearsay rule, the proponent of the record must first demonstrate that it was within the scope of the entrant's business duty to record the act, transaction or occurrence sought to be admitted" ( Matter of Leon RR , 48 NY2d 117, 122; see CPLR 4518[a]; Matter of James M.B. [Claudia H.] , 155 AD3d 1027, 1030).

2022Contrary to defendants' argument, the "Drivers' Accident Report" attached to Tartnack's affidavit containing Genito's description of the accident likewise recites hearsay and is not admissible under the business record exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]; see also People v Kennedy , 68 NY2d 569, 580 [1986]).

2015Here, the People failed to establish a sufficient foundation to permit the court to admit People’s Exhibit 4 into evidence under the business record exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 580-581 [1986]; People v Vargas, 99 AD3d 481 [2012]; People v McCollough, 283 AD2d 522 [2001]).

2022Contrary to defendants' argument, the "Drivers' Accident Report" attached to Tartnack's affidavit containing Genito's description of the accident likewise recites hearsay and is not admissible under the business record exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]; see also People v Kennedy , 68 NY2d 569, 580 [1986]).

2015In order to lay a proper foundation for the admission of evidence under the business record exception to the hearsay rule, the proponent thereof must establish that the subject record was “made in the regular course of any business and that it was the regular course of such business to make it, at the time of the act, transaction, occurrence or event, or within a reasonable time thereafter” (CPLR 4518 [a]; see People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]).

2025In Matter of Anthony H. , the Second Department held, without giving specific examples, that diagnoses in Anthony H.'s medical records, which stated that his hospitalizations were caused by his failure to take his medication, "were admissible under the business record exception to the hearsay rule, because the diagnoses were relevant to his treatment, and could be used to develop a discharge plan that would ensure his safety " ( Matter of Anthony H. [Karpati] , 82 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2011]). [Emphasis added by this Court.] Another decision discussing at length the issue of medical records contain

2025In Matter of Anthony H. , the Second Department held, without giving specific examples, that diagnoses in Anthony H.'s medical records, which stated that his hospitalizations were caused by his failure to take his medication, "were admissible under the business record exception to the hearsay rule, because the diagnoses were relevant to his treatment, and could be used to develop a discharge plan that would ensure his safety " ( Matter of Anthony H. [Karpati] , 82 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2011]). [Emphasis added by this Court.] Another decision discussing at length the issue of medical records contain

2020We reject the father's contention that the court erred in admitting into evidence certain permanency reports inasmuch as the reports were admissible under the business record exception to the hearsay rule ( see CPLR 4518 [a]; Matter of Shirley A.S. [David A.S.] , 90 AD3d 1655, 1655 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 811 [2012]; Matter of Noemi D. , 43 AD3d 1303, 1304 [4th Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 814 [2007]).

2013The certification stated that the document “was within the scope of the entrant’s business duty to record the act, transaction or occurrence sought to be admitted” and that each participant in the chain producing the record was acting within the course of regular business conduct (Matter of Leon RR, 48 NY2d 117, 122-123 [1979]; see also Matter of Shirley A.S. [David A.S.], 90 AD3d 1655, 1655 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 811 [2012]).

1989As Judge Fuld stated in Williams v Alexander (supra, at 287), the law permits the introduction of hearsay statements that concern "acts, occurrences or events that relate to diagnosis, prognosis or treatment or are otherwise 'helpful to an understanding of the medical or surgical aspects of * * * [the * * * patient’s] hospitalization. ’ ” (Emphasis added.) The other aspect of the business record rule that must be considered in this case is whether the relator and the relatee had a duty to relate and record the information.

1985In any event, the introduction of this sentence from the hospital chart into evidence, at the conclusion of the direct testimony of the witness, was proper either under the business record exception to the hearsay rule or as an admission by plaintiff (CPLR 4518 [a]; Williams v Alexander, 309 NY 283, 288 ; People v Conde, 16 AD2d 327, 330 , affd 13 NY2d 939 ; Roberto v Nielson, 288 NY 581 ; Kelly v Wasserman, 5 NY2d 425 ; Chemical Leaman Tank Lines v Stevens, 21 AD2d 556 ; Zaulich v Thompkins Sq.

2020This Court has held that, even where a police report is properly certified, the hearsay statements of nonparties or unknown sources contained therein may not be admitted for their truth ( see Noakes v Rosa , 54 AD3d 317, 318 ["The police report should not have been admitted into evidence as a business record exception to the hearsay rule.

2020This Court has held that, even where a police report is properly certified, the hearsay statements of nonparties or unknown sources contained therein may not be admitted for their truth ( see Noakes v Rosa , 54 AD3d 317, 318 ["The police report should not have been admitted into evidence as a business record exception to the hearsay rule.

2020We reject the father's contention that the court erred in admitting into evidence certain permanency reports inasmuch as the reports were admissible under the business record exception to the hearsay rule ( see CPLR 4518 [a]; Matter of Shirley A.S. [David A.S.] , 90 AD3d 1655, 1655 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 811 [2012]; Matter of Noemi D. , 43 AD3d 1303, 1304 [4th Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 814 [2007]).

2013The certification stated that the document “was within the scope of the entrant’s business duty to record the act, transaction or occurrence sought to be admitted” and that each participant in the chain producing the record was acting within the course of regular business conduct (Matter of Leon RR, 48 NY2d 117, 122-123 [1979]; see also Matter of Shirley A.S. [David A.S.], 90 AD3d 1655, 1655 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 811 [2012]).

2015As a general rule, such evidence may be admissible under the business record exception to the hearsay rule so long as the records “reflect acts, occurrences or events that relate to diagnosis, prognosis or treatment or are otherwise helpful to an understanding of the medical or surgical aspects of . . . [the particular patient’s] hospitalization” (People v Ortega, 15 NY3d 610, 617 [2010]; see People v Wright, 81 AD3d 1161, 1164 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 803 [2011]).

2012Patient has been unstable, angry on the phone.” The court finds that all of these statements in the hospital record are admissible evidence, under the business record exception to the hearsay rule, to support an AOT order since the statements were relevant for the hospital to diagnose, treat and ultimately develop a discharge plan for the respondent (see People v Ortega, supra; Matter of Anthony H., supra).

2022Jones/GMO , 38 AD3d 461, 463 [1st Dept 2007]).

2022Jones/GMO , 38 AD3d 461, 463 [1st Dept 2007]).

2020The statement in the report that the defendant 'rear-ended' the plaintiff was from an unknown source" (citation omitted)]; DeLuca v Blanco , 31 AD3d 600, 601 ["The trial court properly refused to admit into evidence a statement made by a witness to the accident, who did not testify at the trial, which was contained in the police accident report.

2020The statement in the report that the defendant 'rear-ended' the plaintiff was from an unknown source" (citation omitted)]; DeLuca v Blanco , 31 AD3d 600, 601 ["The trial court properly refused to admit into evidence a statement made by a witness to the accident, who did not testify at the trial, which was contained in the police accident report.

2024Moreover, the maker of the record must have personal knowledge of its creation or, assuming another person made it, it must be shown that such person was under a business duty to make it. ( See Johnson v Lutz, 253 NY 124 [1930]; Matter of Leon RR , 48 NY2d 117 [1979]; Bank of NY Mellon v Gordon , 171 AD3d 197 [2d Dept 2019].) Plaintiff refers to Exhibit M (NYSCEF Doc No. 88) as being IMI's tax returns but, again, there is nothing to authenticate them as business records in accordance with the business record exception to the hearsay rule.

2024It is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted. ( Johnson v Lutz , 253 NY 124 [1930]; Bank of New York Mellon v Gordon , 171 AD3d 197 [2d Dept 2019]; Coolidge Capital LLC v Marine Plus LLC , 81 Misc 3d 1206[A] , 2023 NY Slip Op 51278[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2023]; Capybara Capital LLC v Zilco NW LLC , 78 Misc 3d 1238[A] , 2023 NY Slip Op 50476[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2023].) In this motion, the fourth foundational element to establish the business record exception was not met.

2015While portions of the police report identifying the occupants of the premises constituted inadmissible hearsay (see Cover v Cohen, 61 NY2d 261, 274 [1984]), the report was admissible under the business record exception to the hearsay rule to the extent that it was based upon the personal observations of the detective of the structural configuration of the premises (see Matter of Leon RR, 48 NY2d 117, 122 [1979]; Westchester Med.

1999Moreover, the statement did not qualify as a business record exception to the hearsay rule, since the eyewitness was under no duty to impart information to the police (see, CPLR 4518 [a]; Johnson v Lutz, 253 NY 124, 128 ; Cover v Cohen, 61 NY2d 261, 274 ; Hatton v Gassier, 219 AD2d 697 ; Conners v Duck’s Cesspool Serv., 144 AD2d 329 ).

1996Even assuming that the exhibit was admissible under CPLR 4518, it is well settled that "[t]he business records exception to the hearsay rule * * * does not overcome any other exclusionary rule which might properly be invoked” (People v Tortorice, 142 AD2d 916, 918 [citation omitted]; see, Toll v State of New York, 32 AD2d 47, 50 ), such as the requirement that the evidence sought to be introduced be relevant and material to the issue at hand.

1993The police report is hearsay but, contrary to plaintiffs contention, it is admissible under the business record exception of CPLR 4518 (a) inasmuch as the witnesses who gave the statements were police officers at the scene with a duty to report their observations to the recording officer (see, Toll v State of New York, 32 AD2d 47, 49 ).

2005In language apposite to autopsy reports, the Court stated that “[w]hile it is true that such records may later be used in litigation, such was not the sole purpose when they were made, and, therefore, they should not be excluded merely because this was a possible future use.” (People v Foster at 52 .) In People v Nisonoff ( 293 NY 597, 602 [1944], cert denied 326 US 745 [1945]), the Court held admissible the factual findings contained in the report authored by an assistant medical examiner who had died prior to trial because the report was an “official record . . . required to be kept” (also s

1993Forty-six years later (Dec. 30, 1944), in People v Nisonoff ( 293 NY 597 ), the Court of Appeals was faced with a claim that the business record exception to the hearsay rule violated defendant’s right to confrontation.

2014Contrary to the mother’s contention, most of the progress notes in the petitioner’s case file that were offered into evidence were properly admitted under the business record exception to *789 the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 [a]; Matter of Leon RR, 48 NY2d 117, 122-123 [1979]; Matter of ‘Male” G., 97 Misc 2d 283, 284 [Fam Ct, NY County 1978]).

1998Petitioner’s case record was properly admitted into evidence under the business record exception to the hearsay rule (Matter of Brooke Louise H., 158 AD2d 425, 426 ; Matter of “Male” G., 97 Misc 2d 283 ).

2013We agree with defendant that plaintiff “failed to establish a proper foundation for the admission of [those exhibits] under the business record exception to the hearsay rule” (Palisades Collection, LLC v Kedik, 67 AD3d 1329, 1330 [2009]).

2011Thus, we cannot agree with plaintiff that it established a proper foundation for the admission of the credit card statements and account balance documents under the business record exception to the hearsay rule sufficient to establish standing ( see Palisades Collection, LLC, 67 AD3d at 1330-1331 ; see generally Speirs v Not Fade Away Tie Dye Co., 236 AD2d 531 [1997]).

2011People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d 136 [2008] [fingerprint comparison report prepared by police analyst concluding that the prints in question were defendant’s was inadmissible under the business record exception as it was testimonial in nature]; People v Meekins [decided with Rawlins] [technician’s report establishing a particular DNA profile was not testimonial and therefore admissible]; People v Freycinet, 11 NY3d 38, 41-42 [2008] [medical examiner’s report, redacted to eliminate the coroner’s opinions as to the cause of the victim’s death, was not testimonial]).

2008Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the DNA evidence was properly admitted under the business record exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 [a]; People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d 136, 158-160 [2008]; People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 90-91 [1995]; People v Grogan, 28 AD3d 579, 581 [2006]; People v Baylor, 25 AD3d 562 [2006]; cf. People v Bones, 17 AD3d 689, 690 [2005]) and did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]).

2011Thus, we cannot agree with plaintiff that it established a proper foundation for the admission of the credit card statements and account balance documents under the business record exception to the hearsay rule sufficient to establish standing ( see Palisades Collection, LLC, 67 AD3d at 1330-1331 ; see generally Speirs v Not Fade Away Tie Dye Co., 236 AD2d 531 [1997]).

2009Contrary to the contention of plaintiff, the court properly determined that it failed to establish a proper foundation for the admission of the spreadsheet under the business record exception to the hearsay rule (see generally Speirs v Not Fade Away Tie Dye Co., 236 AD2d 531 [1997]).

2009(People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 361 [2000].) The exception upon which the People rely is the business record exception, “recognized as probably the most important hearsay exception ... (5 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶¶ 4518.01, 4518.02)” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 578 [1986]).

2008We observe, however, that the hearsay nature of allegations in the subject informations and attached, supporting documents does not constitute a barrier to their consideration in determining the sufficiency of the informations, since no motion was made by defendant in the court below to dismiss the informations for lack of nonhearsay allegations (see People v Casey, 95 NY2d at 361-366 ).

2008In any event, the DNA evidence was properly admitted under the business record exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 [a]; People v Baylor, 25 AD3d 562 [2006]), and admitting that evidence did not violate the defendant’s right of confrontation (see People v Grogan, 28 AD3d 579 [2006]).

2008Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the DNA evidence was properly admitted under the business record exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 [a]; People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d 136, 158-160 [2008]; People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 90-91 [1995]; People v Grogan, 28 AD3d 579, 581 [2006]; People v Baylor, 25 AD3d 562 [2006]; cf. People v Bones, 17 AD3d 689, 690 [2005]) and did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]).

2004The theft report, admitted into evidence at the hearing without objection, qualified as a business record exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Meyers, 72 Misc 2d 1003, 1007 [1973]), as it clearly identified Donati as the source of the information contained therein (cf. Gagliano v Vaccaro, 97 AD2d 430, 431 [1983]), and was an admission against Donati’s interest (see Vaden v Rose, 4 AD3d 468 [2004]; Kemenyash v McGoey, 306 AD2d 516 [2003]; Guevara v Zaharakis, 303 AD2d 555 [2003]).

1989The record reveals that the computer printout was properly authenticated by the investigating policeman as a document he obtained in the regular course of police business and, in fact, police computers are tied into Department of Motor Vehicle computers for that very purpose (see, CPLR 4518 [a]; People v Meyers, 72 Misc 2d 1003 ).