business records exception in New York

2024Defendants failed to establish that the business records exception applies to that statement, in the absence of any showing that the foreman had personal knowledge of the accident ( see Matter of Leon RR , 48 NY2d 117, 122-123 [1979]).

2024Defendants failed to establish that the business records exception applies to that statement, in the absence of any showing that the foreman had personal knowledge of the accident ( see Matter of Leon RR , 48 NY2d 117, 122-123 [1979]).

2025Conversely, the fact that medical records themselves may be admissible under the business records exception does not establish that every hearsay statement contained therein is admissible ( see People v Ortega , 15 NY3d at 619-620 ; Greca v Choice Assoc.

2025By contrast, entries that are not germane to medical diagnosis and treatment "may not be regarded as having been made in the regular course of the hospital's business" and, therefore, are not admissible under the business records exception ( Williams v Alexander , 309 NY at 288 ; see People v Ortega , 15 NY3d at 617 ). "[A] memorandum made in a hospital record of acts or occurrences leading to the patient's hospitalization — such as a narration of the accident causing the injury — not germane to diagnosis or treatment , is not admissible under" the business records exception ( Williams v Alexa

2024Such documents are business records subject to the evidentiary rules governing their admissibility ( see CPLR 4518; see generally People v Kennedy , 68 NY2d 569 [1986]), and defendant did not produce the documents in admissible form, nor did she lay a sufficient foundation to satisfy the business records exception to the hearsay rule ( see Hakim , 2018 NY Slip Op 51112[U] ).

2024Penal Law § 175.30 renders one "guilty of [the class A misdemeanor of] offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree when," similar to Penal Law § 210.45, "he offers or presents it to a public office or public servant with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become a part of the records of such public office or public servant." Footnote 2: Support for this conclusion is found in the business records exception to the hearsay rule, which is grounded in the theory "that records systematically made for the conduct of a business a

2019Contrary to the defendant's contention, the business records upon which Gardner relied were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule ( see CPLR 4518[a]; People v Cratsley , 86 NY2d 81, 90 ).

2018Contrary to the defendant's contentions, documents showing the costs to repair Verizon's fiber optic cables were properly admitted into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule ( see CPLR 4518[a]; People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332, 341 ; People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 ; People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 635 ; People v Meekins, 34 AD3d 843 , affd 10 NY3d 136 ; People v DiSalvo, 284 AD2d 547 ).

2025Accordingly, the only entries in medical records that are admissible under the business records exception are those that are germane to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient ( see id. ; Grechko v Maimonides Med.

2025By contrast, entries that are not germane to medical diagnosis and treatment "may not be regarded as having been made in the regular course of the hospital's business" and, therefore, are not admissible under the business records exception ( Williams v Alexander , 309 NY at 288 ; see People v Ortega , 15 NY3d at 617 ). "[A] memorandum made in a hospital record of acts or occurrences leading to the patient's hospitalization — such as a narration of the accident causing the injury — not germane to diagnosis or treatment , is not admissible under" the business records exception ( Williams v Alexa

2021As we recognized almost a century ago, such an approach would be financially and logistically impractical given the reality that commercial entities create and process significant volumes of mail and may experience frequent employee turnover—circumstances that apply not only to banks, but many other businesses and government agencies (see generally Johnson v Lutz, 253 NY 124, 126-127 [1930] [addressing adoption of the business records rule]).

2019We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to admit into evidence "sprint" reports regarding the 911 calls under the business records exception to the hearsay rule ( see CPLR 4518[a]; People v Patterson , 28 NY3d 544, 551 ; Matter of Leon RR , 48 NY2d 117, 122 ; Johnson v Lutz , 253 NY 124 ; Matter of James M.B. [Claudia H.] , 155 AD3d 1027 , 1030; cf .

2020The affidavit failed to lay the requisite foundation under the business records exception to the hearsay rule to support the admissibility of the records relied upon by the affiant for her assertion that the note was transferred to the plaintiff's custodian prior to the commencement of the action and remained in the possession of the plaintiff's custodian at the time of commencement ( see US Bank N.A. v Hunte , 176 AD3d at 896; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Mercius , 138 AD3d 650 , 651-652).

2018The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon by Thrasher were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule ( see CPLR 4518[a]) because Thrasher, an employee of Ocwen, did not attest that she was personally familiar with the plaintiff's record-keeping practices and procedures ( see Bank of N.Y. v Willis, 150 AD3d 652, 653 ; Arch Bay Holdings, LLC v Albanese, 146 AD3d 849, 852 ; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Mercius, 138 AD3d 650, 652 ).

2011Because the history [of the incident] was germane to treatment, it falls within the traditional business records exception . . ., and the hearsay was therefore admissible” (People v Rogers, 8 AD3d 888, 892 ; see People v Bailey, 252 AD2d 815, 815-816 , lv denied 92 NY2d 922 ).

2011Because the history [of the incident] was germane to treatment, it falls within the traditional business records exception . . . , and the hearsay was therefore admissible” (People v Rogers, 8 AD3d 888, 892 [2004]; see People v Bailey, 252 AD2d 815, 815-816 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 922 [1998]).

2017She also alleged, based upon a review of “business records maintained by Nationstar Mortgage, LLC as successor in interest to [the plaintiff],” that the “[p]laintiff was in continuous possession of the note and mortgage since prior to the commencement of this action.” However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the records relied upon by Hastings under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 [a]), since Hastings did not attest that she was personally familiar with *651 the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures (see Aurora Loan Servs

2017However, Nationstar failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the records relied upon by Raimundi under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 [a]), since Raimundi did not attest that she was personally familiar with Aurora’s record-keeping practices and procedures (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Baritz, 144 AD3d 618, 620 [2016]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Handler, 140 AD3d 948, 949 [2016]; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Mercius, 138 AD3d at 652).

2020Therefore, the plaintiff failed to establish a proper foundation for the admission of the records relied upon to establish Bhatti's default under the business records exception to the hearsay rule ( see CPLR 4518[a]; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Baritz , 144 AD3d 618, 620 ; Citibank, N.A. v Cabrera , 130 AD3d 861 ).

2019In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Melissa Black, an employee of the plaintiff's loan servicer, who alleged, based upon a review of business records maintained by the loan servicer, that the plaintiff had been "in continuous possession of the note and mortgage since June 26, 2007." However, because Black did not attest that she was personally familiar with the plaintiff's record-keeping practices and procedures, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon by Black were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule ( see

2021"Hospital records fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule as long as the information relates to diagnosis, prognosis or treatment" ( People v Wright , 81 AD3d 1161, 1164 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 803 [2011] [citations omitted]; see CPL 60.10; CPLR 4518).

2014“Hospital records fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule as long as the information relates to diagnosis, prognosis or treatment” (People v Wright, 81 AD3d 1161, 1164 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 803 [2011] [citation omitted]; see People v Ortega, 15 NY3d 610, 617 [2010]; see also CPLR 4518; CPL 60.10).

2026The defendants failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the records they relied upon under the business records exception to the hearsay rule ( see CPLR 4518[a]; Citibank, N.A. v Cabrera , 130 AD3d 861, 861-862 ).

2026The defendants failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the records they relied upon under the business records exception to the hearsay rule ( see CPLR 4518[a]; Citibank, N.A. v Cabrera , 130 AD3d 861, 861-862).

2016"Confrontation Clause challenges ( see Crawford v Washington , 541 US 36 [2004]) to the admission of a breath testing machine's calibration and maintenance documents under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (CPLR 4518) have been considered and rejected ( see People v Pealer , 20 NY3d 447 , 455 [2013]; People v Lent , 29 Misc 3d 14 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]; People v Lebrecht , 13 Misc 3d 45 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006])" ( People v McCombs , 47 Misc 3d 44 , 48 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2015]).

2015Confrontation Clause challenges (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]) to the admission of a breath testing machine’s calibration and maintenance documents under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (CPLR 4518) have been considered and rejected (People v Pealer, 20 NY3d 447 [2013]; People v Lent, 29 Misc 3d 14 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]; People v Lebrecht, 13 Misc 3d 45 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006]).

2019Trust Co. v Brewton , 142 AD3d 683, 685 ).

2019Trust Co. v Brewton , 142 AD3d 683, 685 ; U.S. Bank N.A. v Handler , 140 AD3d 948, 949 ; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Mercius , 138 AD3d at 652).

2011County Court did not err by denying defendant’s request to redact the child’s statements from the medical records and by permitting a nurse to testify as to those statements. 2 Hospital records fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule as long as the information relates to diagnosis, prognosis or treatment (see People v Ortega, 15 NY3d 610, 617 [2010]; People v Rogers, 8 AD3d 888, 892 [2004]; see also CPLR 4518, CPL 60.10).

2011Because the history [of the incident] was germane to treatment, it falls within the traditional business records exception . . . , and the hearsay was therefore admissible” (People v Rogers, 8 AD3d 888, 892 [2004]; see People v Bailey, 252 AD2d 815, 815-816 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 922 [1998]).

2017Co. ( 46 AD3d 174, 179 [2d Dept 2007]), “[t]he basis of the business records exception to the hearsay rule is the trustworthiness of the document.” In Corsi v Town of Bedford ( 58 AD3d 225, 231 [2d Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 714 [2009]), the Second Department held that certain aerial photographs, taken by a third-party vendor, qualified as admissible business records, due to “the ‘routineness’ that ‘tends to guarantee truthfulness because of the absence of motivation to falsify’ ” (quoting Ed Guth Realty v Gingold, 34 NY2d 440, 451 [1974]).

2009Co., 46 AD3d 174, 182 [2007]), he still failed to establish, by laying the requisite foundation (see CPLR 4518 [a]), that the documents were plaintiffs business records and, therefore, admissible in court pursuant to the business records exception to the rule against hearsay (see id.; People v DiSalvo, 284 AD2d 547 [2001]; Plymouth Rock Fuel Corp. v Leucadia, Inc., 117 AD2d 727 [1986]; Bajaj v General Assur., 18 Misc 3d 25, 28 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; Second Med., P.C. v Auto One Ins.

2018Contrary to the defendant's contentions, documents showing the costs to repair Verizon's fiber optic cables were properly admitted into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule ( see CPLR 4518[a]; People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332, 341 ; People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 ; People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 635 ; People v Meekins, 34 AD3d 843 , affd 10 NY3d 136 ; People v DiSalvo, 284 AD2d 547 ).

2017Any writing or record, whether in the form of an entry in a book or otherwise, made as a memorandum or record of any act, transaction, occurrence or event, shall be admissible in evidence in proof of that act, transaction, occurrence or event, if the judge finds that it 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.” The Court of Appeals in People v Guidice ( 83 NY2d 630, 635 [1994]) explained that “[t]he essence of the business recor

2019"There is no requirement that a plaintiff in a foreclosure action rely on any particular set of business records to establish a prima facie case, so long as the plaintiff satisfies the admissibility requirements of CPLR 4518(a), and the records themselves actually evince the facts for which they are relied upon" ( Citigroup v Kopelowitz , 147 AD3d 1014, 1015 ; see HSBC Bank USA , N.A. v Ozcan , 154 AD3d at 826 ). "[M]ailing may be proved by any number of documents meeting the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule under CPLR 4518" ( HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Ozcan , 154

2018While mailing may be proved by documents meeting the requirements of the business records exception" to the hearsay rule, Benight, in her affidavit, did not aver that she was familiar with the plaintiff's mailing practices and procedures, and therefore did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed ( CitiMortgage, Inc. v Pappas, 147 AD3d at 901; see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Trupia, 150 AD3d at 1050 ).

2018Contrary to the defendant's contentions, documents showing the costs to repair Verizon's fiber optic cables were properly admitted into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule ( see CPLR 4518[a]; People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332, 341 ; People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 ; People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 635 ; People v Meekins, 34 AD3d 843 , affd 10 NY3d 136 ; People v DiSalvo, 284 AD2d 547 ).

2009Although records falling within the business records exception are not automatically deemed nontestimonial statements, the attendance record did not exhibit “various indicia of testimoniality” (People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d 136, 151 [2008]; see People v Freycinet, 11 NY3d 38, 41 [2008]).

2016Contrary to the contention of defendant, the abstract of his driving record from the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles was properly admitted in evidence pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 [a]; CPL 60.10; People v Carney, 41 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 873 [2007]; cf. People v Pacer, 21 AD3d 192, 194 [2005], affd 6 NY3d 504 [2006]; see also People v Maldonado, 44 AD3d 793, 794 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1035 [2008]).

2016Contrary to the contention of defendant, the abstract of his driving record from the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles was properly admitted in evidence pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 [a]; CPL 60.10; People v Carney, 41 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 873 [2007]; cf. People v Pacer, 21 AD3d 192, 194 [2005], affd 6 NY3d 504 [2006]; see also People v Maldonado, 44 AD3d 793, 794 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1035 [2008]).

2025Additionally, we find that, regardless of whether it was an improvident exercise of discretion for the District Court to have admitted the 911 calls by the complainant's wife into evidence, such error was harmless, as the evidence of defendant's guilt, particularly the surveillance video and the testimony of both the complainant and the investigating police officer, was overwhelming and there is no reasonable possibility that the admission of the 911 calls affected the verdict ( see People v Cedeno , 27 NY3d 110, 121-122 [2016]; People v Hardy , 4 NY3d 192, 198 [2005]; People v Crimmins , 36 N

2021For the same reasons, inasmuch as the defendant preserved for appellate review his contention that the Supreme Court erred in admitting into evidence under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay ( see CPLR 4518[a]; CPL 60.10) certain case files of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York pertaining to the DNA analyses conducted in this case, any error in this regard may be deemed harmless as to the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, to which the DNA evidence did not pertain, and of which the evidence of

2021Nor were the statements admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, since they were not germane to the treatment or diagnosis of plaintiff's injuries ( see Benavides , 115 AD3d at 519 ; Quispe , 266 AD2d at 96 ).

2016Those entries, which defense counsel mentioned in summation, “were germane neither to treatment nor to diagnosis and were therefore not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule” (Musaid v Mercy Hosp. of Buffalo, 249 AD2d 958, 959 [1998]) and, because there is nothing in the record to establish that plaintiff was the source of the information contained in them, the entries are not admissible as admissions (see id. at 959-960 ; see also Quispe v Lemle & Wolff, Inc., 266 AD2d 95, 96 [1999]).

2020If an entry in the medical records "is inconsistent with a position taken by a party at trial, it is admissible as an admission by that party, even if it is not germane to the diagnosis or [*3]treatment, as long as there is 'evidence connecting the party to the entry'" ( Robles v Polytemp, Inc. , 127 AD3d 1052, 1054 , quoting Coker v Bakkal Foods, Inc. , 52 AD3d 765, 766 ).

2019If an entry in the medical records "is inconsistent with a position taken by a party at trial, it is admissible as an admission by that party, even if it is not germane to the diagnosis or treatment, as long as there is evidence connecting the party to the entry'" ( Robles v Polytemp, Inc. , 127 AD3d 1052, 1054 , quoting Coker v Bakkal Foods, Inc. , 52 AD3d 765, 766 ).

2018The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon by Thrasher were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule ( see CPLR 4518[a]) because Thrasher, an employee of Ocwen, did not attest that she was personally familiar with the plaintiff's record-keeping practices and procedures ( see Bank of N.Y. v Willis, 150 AD3d 652, 653 ; Arch Bay Holdings, LLC v Albanese, 146 AD3d 849, 852 ; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Mercius, 138 AD3d 650, 652 ).

2018However, OneWest failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the records that Thrasher relied upon under the business records exception to the hearsay rule ( see CPLR 4518[a]), since she did not attest that she was personally familiar with OneWest's record-keeping practices and procedures ( see Arch Bay Holdings, LLC v Albanese, 146 AD3d at 853 ; Aurora Loan Serv., LLC v Baritz, 144 AD3d 618, 620 ; Deutsche Bank Natl.

2021"Hospital records fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule as long as the information relates to diagnosis, prognosis or treatment" ( People v Wright , 81 AD3d 1161, 1164 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 803 [2011] [citations omitted]; see CPL 60.10; CPLR 4518).

2014“Hospital records fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule as long as the information relates to diagnosis, prognosis or treatment” (People v Wright, 81 AD3d 1161, 1164 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 803 [2011] [citation omitted]; see People v Ortega, 15 NY3d 610, 617 [2010]; see also CPLR 4518; CPL 60.10).

2019"There is no requirement that a plaintiff in a foreclosure action rely on any particular set of business records to establish a prima facie case, so long as the plaintiff satisfies the admissibility requirements of CPLR 4518(a), and the records themselves actually evince the facts for which they are relied upon" ( Citigroup v Kopelowitz , 147 AD3d 1014, 1015 ; see HSBC Bank USA , N.A. v Ozcan , 154 AD3d at 826 ). "[M]ailing may be proved by any number of documents meeting the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule under CPLR 4518" ( HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Ozcan , 154

2019While mailing may be proved by documents meeting the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule under CPLR 4518 ( see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Ozcan , 154 AD3d 822, 827 ), here, the affiant did not aver that he was familiar with the servicer's mailing practices and procedures and therefore did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed ( see U.S. Bank N.A. v Henry , 157 AD3d 839 , 841-842; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Lewczuk , 153 AD3d 890, 892 ; M & T Bank v Joseph , 152 AD3d 579, 580 ; Citi