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

Last reviewed: September 2026.

Key Takeaways

• People v Manges, 67 AD3d 1328 (4th Dept. 2009), holds that a bank-teller’s computer-screen printout was inadmissible under CPLR 4518(a) because the People couldn’t prove the data was entered contemporaneously by someone with a business duty.
• CPLR 4518(a) asks whether the record was made in the regular course, whether making it was the regular course, and whether it was made at the event or within a reasonable time afterward. The source of the recorded information must also support its use for the offered purpose.
• The teller’s account did not establish regular-course creation of the underlying data. Access to a computer did not supply the missing foundation.
• CPLR 4518(a) expressly allows an accurate tangible representation of an electronic record. Permissions and audit trails can be useful evidence, but Manges does not mandate a separate universal technical checklist.
• CPLR 4518(a) applies in both civil litigation (CPLR 4518) and criminal prosecutions (via CPL 60.10) — the Manges principles travel to no-fault, medical-malpractice, and commercial cases alike.
• For no-fault practice, this means provider billing records, EMR notes, and ledger entries need a custodian who can speak to who entered the data, when, and under what authority — not merely “in the regular course of business.”
• People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569 (1986), remains the canonical statement of the CPLR 4518(a) standard — Manges merely operationalizes it for the electronic-records era.

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 — particularly in no-fault defense, where provider EMR and billing systems generate the bulk of the documentary record.

The business records exception under CPLR 4518(a) serves as a crucial pathway for admitting otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence. The 2009 Manges decision illustrates a failure to establish the foundation for particular electronic data. It should not be described as a new trend or as a ruling under the 11 NYCRR Part 65 no-fault framework.

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

Jason’s original case note:

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 made at the time of the recorded event or within a reasonable time afterward. 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.

What should an electronic-record foundation explain?

A foundation should explain the regular-course creation of the underlying data and connect the offered printout to those data. Permissions, audit history and modification controls may help answer a disputed authenticity question. Manges did not require every witness to describe a write-once design, a particular audit trail or a universal technical template. The inquiry is whether the actual exhibit satisfies the applicable evidentiary requirements. The companion analysis on how this combines with assignment-of-benefits admissibility is in Assignments and business records – a deadly combination.

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

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 — and the post-CPLR 2106 amendment affirmation rules have made it easier (not harder) to bring a properly-laid foundation witness’s testimony into the record by sworn statement.

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. For the broader topical map of New York no-fault, business-records, and evidentiary doctrine, see the JTNY legal encyclopedia.

Contact an Experienced New York Evidence Attorney

A civil case may depend on admitting business records from a billing system, employer or other business. Bring counsel the complete exhibit and an explanation of its source. Manges illustrates a foundation problem; its criminal disposition is not a promise about the outcome of a civil matter.

The firm handles evidence questions in civil litigation. This criminal decision is discussed for its analysis of a business-record foundation; it is not a representation that the firm offers criminal-defense services.

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.

A print date is not necessarily an entry date

People v Manges, 67 AD3d 1328, was decided November 13, 2009. The court rejected a bank computer printout because the prosecution did not establish the regular-course creation of the underlying data. The missing foundation left the evidence legally insufficient, and the indictment was dismissed.

Printing a record for litigation is not the same event as creating the underlying entry. A later printout can accurately represent a timely business entry; a printout created on the transaction date can still reproduce data of unexplained origin. Identify which date the witness actually knows.

Distinguish a statutory requirement from a useful technical question

Current CPLR 4518(a) expressly addresses tangible representations of electronic records. The exhibit must accurately represent the electronic record. Storage, maintenance and retrieval methods may bear on that determination.

Permissions, audit logs and modification history can help answer an authenticity dispute. Manges did not announce that every electronic record needs a write-once system, a particular audit-trail format or testimony naming every employee with access. Do not turn useful discovery questions into nonexistent universal requirements.

For an exported ledger, identify the source system, the records included and any filters applied. Explain whether the displayed date is a transaction date, an entry date or an export date. Those labels can matter when a party argues that the record was made too late.

The witness needs knowledge of the process

Remember that the person who’s retrieving the exhibit may understand the software but may not understand the business process that is generating or creating the data. And vice versa, a billing employee may know the business process but may not know anything about a later database migration so you just have to ask yourself what do I need to know and then go find someone who’s going to give you that information?

The Jones decision illustrates another problem: a limited use can become a truth-of-content use during trial. If the proponent later asks the factfinder to accept an entry as true, the foundation cannot be avoided merely by remembering the narrower purpose stated when the exhibit was first offered.

For records received from another business, compare Brannon. Importing records into a system does not by itself explain their origin or the receiving business’s reliance. The issue is the evidentiary showing, not whether the data are displayed in a familiar application.

Historical note: Manges rejected the unexplained data foundation in its record; CPLR 4518(a) permits electronic exhibits without prescribing a universal audit-trail checklist.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Start with the CPLR 4518 business-records hub. Compare the evidentiary purpose, witness knowledge and result in these notes:

• Sin Medical: letters offered for a nonhearsay purpose
• Etienne: third-party billing and the later appeal
• Wheatley: mailing proof and notice compliance
• V.S. Medical: the missing trial foundation

For help assessing evidence in a pending civil matter, contact the firm with the complete records, motion papers and any court order. This historical discussion is general information, not advice on a particular file.