Business records – when was the data entered and who could enter it?

Understanding the Critical Elements of Business Records in Criminal and Civil Cases

In the intricate world of New York evidence law, the admissibility of business records can determine the outcome of both criminal prosecutions and civil litigation. For attorneys practicing throughout Long Island, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island, understanding the nuanced requirements for introducing electronic data and computer records is essential for building successful cases and avoiding devastating evidentiary failures.

The business records exception under CPLR 4518(a) serves as a crucial pathway for admitting otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence. However, as recent appellate decisions demonstrate, courts are increasingly demanding strict adherence to foundational requirements, particularly when dealing with electronic records and computer-generated data that form the backbone of modern business operations.

The People v. Manges Decision: A Prosecution’s Evidentiary Nightmare

In another interesting evidentiary based case, the Fourth Department in People v Manges, 2009 NY Slip Op 08258 (4th Dept. 2009) evaluated the “contemporaneous” and “business duty to enter the information” prongs of the business record rule. As you can see, the People failed miserably in their marshaling of the evidence to prove pivotal elements of the crimes of felony possession of a forged instrument and attempted grand larceny.

“We agree with defendant that County Court erred in admitting in evidence a printout of electronic data that was displayed on a computer screen when defendant presented a check, the allegedly forged instrument, to a bank teller. The People failed to establish that the printout falls within the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 ), which applies here (see CPL 60.10). The People presented no evidence that the data displayed on the computer screen, resulting in the printout, was entered in the regular course of business at the time of the transaction (see CPLR 4518 ). Indeed, the bank teller who identified the computer screen printout testified that “anyone can sit down at a computer and enter information.” Because the computer screen printout was the only evidence establishing the identity of the purported true account owner upon which the check was drawn, we conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction.”

The Contemporary Requirement: Timing is Everything

The Manges case highlights a fundamental principle that resonates across all New York courts, from Nassau County District Court to Manhattan Supreme Court: business records must be created contemporaneously with the events they document. This “contemporaneous” requirement serves multiple purposes in ensuring the reliability and accuracy of business records.

Why Contemporaneous Entry Matters

The contemporaneous requirement exists because records created at or near the time of an event are presumed to be more accurate and reliable than those created days, weeks, or months later. In the fast-paced business environment of New York City and Long Island, this principle takes on particular significance as employees and systems process thousands of transactions daily.

For practitioners handling cases in Suffolk County, Nassau County, and throughout the five boroughs, the lesson from Manges is clear: it’s not enough to have business records—you must be able to prove when and how they were created. This requirement extends beyond traditional paper records to encompass the electronic systems that dominate modern business operations.

The “Business Duty” Element: Who Can Enter Information?

Perhaps even more critical than the timing issue in Manges was the court’s focus on who had the authority and responsibility to enter information into the business system. The bank teller’s testimony that “anyone can sit down at a computer and enter information” proved fatal to the prosecution’s case.

Establishing Proper Foundation for Data Entry Authority

The business records exception requires that the person entering the information have a business duty to do so. This means that the individual must be authorized by their employer to input data as part of their regular job responsibilities. In the Manges case, the prosecution failed to establish this crucial element, leading to the exclusion of key evidence.

For attorneys practicing throughout the New York metropolitan area, this principle has broad implications beyond criminal cases. In personal injury litigation, medical malpractice claims, and commercial disputes, establishing who has the authority to create and modify business records can make the difference between admissible evidence and excluded hearsay.

Practical Implications for New York Practitioners

Criminal Defense Applications

The Manges decision provides a powerful tool for criminal defense attorneys throughout Long Island and New York City. When prosecutors attempt to introduce electronic records, computer printouts, or digital data, defense counsel should immediately examine:

• When the data was entered into the system
• Who had the authority to enter the data
• What business procedures governed data entry
• Whether the person entering data had a business duty to do so

These questions become particularly relevant in cases involving financial crimes, fraud, and other offenses that rely heavily on electronic records and computer-generated evidence.

Civil Litigation Considerations

While Manges was a criminal case, its principles apply equally to civil litigation throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and the greater New York area. Personal injury attorneys, for example, may encounter similar issues when dealing with:

• Hospital and medical records systems
• Insurance company databases
• Employment records and payroll systems
• Corporate financial records

In each of these contexts, establishing proper foundation for electronic records requires careful attention to who created the records, when they were created, and whether the person had the authority and duty to make such entries.

The Evolution of Electronic Evidence Standards

The Manges decision reflects broader trends in New York evidence law as courts grapple with the challenges posed by electronic records and computer-generated data. Unlike traditional paper records, electronic data can be easily modified, deleted, or corrupted, making authentication and foundation requirements even more critical.

Best Practices for Electronic Records Authentication

For attorneys handling cases in Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island, developing a systematic approach to electronic records authentication is essential. This includes:

• Identifying the custodian of records with personal knowledge of the system
• Establishing the reliability and accuracy of the electronic system
• Documenting the procedures for data entry and modification
• Proving that printed versions accurately reflect electronic records

Frequently Asked Questions

What exactly is the “business duty” requirement for business records?

The business duty requirement means that the person creating or entering information into business records must have been authorized and obligated by their employer to do so as part of their regular job responsibilities. It’s not enough that someone works for the company—they must specifically have the duty to create or maintain the particular records in question.

How does the contemporaneous requirement apply to electronic records?

For electronic records, the contemporaneous requirement means that data must be entered into computer systems at or near the time of the event being documented. This can be challenging with automated systems or batch processing, requiring careful documentation of when and how data entry occurs.

Can business records be excluded if multiple people have access to enter data?

Not necessarily, but it complicates the foundation. If multiple people have access to enter data, you must still establish that the specific person who entered the relevant information had the business duty to do so, and that proper procedures were followed.

How do the Manges principles affect cases outside of criminal law?

The same evidentiary principles apply in civil cases throughout New York. Whether you’re handling a personal injury case in Nassau County or a commercial dispute in Manhattan, business records must still meet the foundational requirements established in cases like Manges.

What should attorneys do differently after the Manges decision?

Attorneys should be more thorough in laying the foundation for business records, particularly electronic records. This includes identifying witnesses who can testify about data entry procedures, timing, and the specific authority of the person who created the records.

Strategic Considerations for Long Island and NYC Attorneys

The lessons from Manges extend beyond evidentiary technicalities to broader strategic considerations for legal practice in the New York metropolitan area. In an era where most business records are created and maintained electronically, attorneys who fail to master these foundational requirements do so at their own peril.

Proactive Case Preparation

Successful attorneys throughout Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, Nassau County, and Suffolk County recognize that evidentiary issues should be addressed early in case preparation, not during trial. This means conducting thorough discovery regarding recordkeeping practices, identifying appropriate witnesses, and developing comprehensive authentication strategies.

Cross-Examination Opportunities

The Manges decision also highlights opportunities for aggressive cross-examination of witnesses attempting to authenticate business records. By focusing on the specific details of data entry procedures and individual authority, attorneys can often expose weaknesses in their opponents’ evidentiary foundations.

The Future of Business Records Evidence

As technology continues to evolve and business practices become increasingly automated, the principles established in cases like Manges will only become more important. Courts throughout New York are struggling to balance the practical realities of modern recordkeeping with the traditional requirements of evidence law.

This ongoing evolution means that attorneys practicing in Long Island and New York City must stay current with developing case law while mastering the fundamental principles that govern business records authentication. The stakes are simply too high to leave evidentiary issues to chance.

Contact an Experienced New York Evidence Attorney

Whether you’re facing criminal charges that rely on electronic evidence or pursuing a civil case that requires the admission of business records, the complexities of New York evidence law demand experienced legal representation. The principles established in cases like People v. Manges can make the difference between a successful outcome and a devastating evidentiary failure.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum has extensive experience handling complex evidentiary issues in criminal defense, personal injury, and commercial litigation throughout Long Island and New York City. Our thorough understanding of business records authentication requirements has helped countless clients achieve favorable outcomes in cases where proper evidence presentation was crucial.

Don’t let evidentiary missteps undermine your case—call 516-750-0595 today to discuss your legal matter with an attorney who understands the intricacies of New York evidence law and the critical importance of proper foundation for business records. Whether your case is pending in Nassau County Supreme Court, Suffolk County District Court, or any court throughout the New York metropolitan area, we have the experience and knowledge to help you address these complex legal challenges.

Related Articles

• Court guidance on the business records exception under CPLR 4518(a)
• Business record challenges to police reports in evidence law
• CPLR 4518(a) business records admissibility requirements in New York litigation
• Third-party billing records in New York no-fault claims under Carothers
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

---

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2009 post, CPLR 4518 and its implementing regulations may have been amended to address evolving standards for electronic records authentication and digital business records admissibility. Practitioners should verify current statutory provisions and recent appellate interpretations regarding foundational requirements for computer-generated data and electronic business records, as courts have continued to refine these evidentiary standards over the past decade and a half.