Key Takeaway
Court ruling explains when denial of claim forms don't need business records exception - hearsay rules in no-fault insurance evidence cases on Long Island.
This article is part of our ongoing business records coverage, with 208 published articles analyzing business records issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Quality Health Prods., Inc. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50990(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)
“Plaintiff argues, among other things, that defendant’s motion should have been denied because defendant failed to establish that its denial of claim forms constituted evidence in admissible form pursuant to the business records exception to the rule against hearsay as set forth in CPLR 4518. This argument is unavailing. Defendant did not offer the denial of claim forms to establish the truth of the matters asserted therein, such as the lack of medical necessity of the services rendered, but rather to show that such denials were sent, and that, therefore, the claims were denied. As the denial of claim forms were not offered for a hearsay purpose, they did not need to qualify as business records (see e.g. Dawson v Raimon Realty Corp., 303 AD2d 708 ; Splawn v Lextaj Corp., 197 AD2d 479 ).
Plaintiff raises the same argument regarding the notice of cancellation offered by defendant with respect to the insurance policy issued to Manuel Espinal which defendant had canceled. Again, since this document was not being offered for a hearsay purpose, it did not need to qualify as a business record. As plaintiff’s remaining contentions are meritless, the order is affirmed.”
In St. Vincent Medical, P.C. v. Mercury (App. Term 2d Dept. 2009) and NY&P v. Elrac Inc.(2d Dept. 2004), it was held that the denials constituted business records despite the objections of the respective plaintiffs. Also, Dan Medical holds that a bill has to be placed into evidence to satisfy a provider’s prima facie case. So, I am confused by this one.
CORRECTION – See, St. Vincent Medical Care, P.C. v. Mercury Cas. Co. 23 Misc.3d 135(A)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2009)(“The affidavit of defendant’s claim representative set forth the affiant’s personal knowledge of defendant’s business practices and procedures, so as to lay a foundation for the admission of the documents annexed to the affidavit as business records (see CPLR 4518; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 ”).
The second case I cited above should be: Hospital for Joint Diseases v. Elrac, Inc. 11 A.D.3d 43 (2d Dept. 2004)(“We expressly reject the argument of NY & P Hospital that the affidavit of a claims representative based on records maintained by an insurer in the ordinary course of business did not constitute admissible evidence sufficient to establish a valid defense (see DeLeon v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 306 AD2d 146 ; First Interstate Credit Alliance v Sokol, 179 AD2d 583, 584 ). Personal knowledge of such documents, their history, or specific content are not necessarily required of a document custodian (see DeLeon v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., supra”)
There is another case: Montefiore Medical Center v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 31 A.D.3d 724 (2d Dept. 2006)(“Contrary to the contention of the plaintiff Montefiore Medical Center, the affidavit of the defendant’s claims representative based on records maintained by the insurer in the ordinary course of business was sufficient to establish the defense (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v. ELRAC, 11 A.D.3d 432, 433, 783 N.Y.S.2d 612). Similarly, the documents submitted on the cross motion demonstrate that the insurer effectively canceled the policy (see Hughson v. National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 110 A.D.2d 1072, 488 N.Y.S.2d 930″).
Related Articles
- Understanding the business records exception to hearsay rules
- How the business records rule was restored in NY personal injury law
- Third-party billing records and the Carothers standard
- Complete guide to CPLR 4518(a) business records requirements
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 decision, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations have undergone significant amendments, including updates to claims processing procedures and documentation requirements under 11 NYCRR Part 65. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding denial notice requirements and evidentiary standards, as regulatory changes may have affected the admissibility and procedural handling of denial of claim forms in no-fault litigation.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Business Records & Documentary Evidence in New York
The business records exception to the hearsay rule is one of the most important evidentiary foundations in New York litigation. Establishing that a document qualifies as a business record under CPLR 4518 requires showing it was made in the regular course of business, at or near the time of the event, and that it was the regular practice to create such records. In no-fault and personal injury cases, disputes over business records arise constantly — from claim files and medical records to billing documents and mailing logs.
208 published articles in Business records
Keep Reading
More Business records Analysis
CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation
NY CPLR 2106 amendment eliminates notarized affidavits and certificates of conformity. Learn how this changes litigation practice. Call 516-750-0595.
Feb 18, 2026
4518(a)
Analysis of double hearsay issues in motor vehicle accident cases, examining inadmissible police reports and the business records exception under New York evidence law.
Sep 25, 2020
Plaintiff’s medical records are admissible by defendant absent dispute regarding accuracy or veracity
Court ruling establishes that plaintiff's uncertified medical records are admissible when accuracy isn't disputed, offering cleaner evidentiary approach than current hearsay...
Apr 19, 2014
A passenger may move for partial summary judgment re: liability
Passenger wins partial summary judgment on liability in NY appellate case, demonstrating effective legal strategy for innocent passengers in multi-vehicle accidents.
Feb 27, 2012
To accept or not to accept expert testimony?
New York court ruling on when juries can reject expert testimony in personal injury cases. Guidelines for accepting or disregarding medical expert opinions based on evidence and...
Apr 3, 2010
A procedural gem – affidavit as probative evidence
Court ruling demonstrates that affidavits can serve as competent evidence even when referencing underlying documents not produced, providing valuable precedent for no-fault cases.
Oct 25, 2018Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
How are business records used as evidence in no-fault cases?
Business records are critical evidence in no-fault litigation. Under CPLR 4518(a), business records are admissible if made in the regular course of business, at or near the time of the event recorded, and if it was the regular practice of the business to make such records. In no-fault cases, insurers' claim files, mailing logs, denial letters, and EUO/IME scheduling records are frequently offered as business records. The proper foundation must be laid through testimony from a qualified witness or through a certification under CPLR 4518(c).
What types of evidence are important in no-fault and personal injury cases?
Key types of evidence include medical records and bills, police accident reports, diagnostic imaging (MRI, X-ray, CT scans), expert medical opinions, business records from insurance companies and providers, witness statements, photographs of injuries and the accident scene, and employment records for lost wage claims. The rules of evidence under New York CPLR and the Evidence Rules govern what is admissible in court proceedings.
What is the business records exception to hearsay in New York?
Under CPLR 4518(a), a business record is admissible if it was made in the regular course of business, it was the regular course of business to make such a record, and the record was made at or near the time of the event recorded. This exception is crucial in no-fault litigation because insurers' denial letters, claim logs, and peer review reports are often offered as business records. The foundation for the business record must be established through testimony or a certification.
What role does diagnostic imaging play as evidence in injury cases?
Diagnostic imaging — MRIs, CT scans, X-rays, and EMG/NCV studies — provides objective evidence of injuries such as herniated discs, fractures, ligament tears, and nerve damage. Courts and arbitrators give significant weight to imaging evidence because it is less subjective than physical examination findings. In serious injury threshold cases under §5102(d), imaging evidence corroborating clinical findings strengthens the plaintiff's case considerably.
How do New York courts handle surveillance evidence in personal injury cases?
Insurance companies frequently hire investigators to conduct video surveillance of plaintiffs to challenge injury claims. Under CPLR 3101(i), a party must disclose surveillance materials prior to trial, including films, photographs, and videotapes. Surveillance evidence can be powerful for impeachment if it contradicts the plaintiff's testimony about limitations. However, courts may preclude surveillance that was not properly disclosed or that is misleadingly edited.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a business records matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
