Key Takeaway
Fourth Department case demonstrates exacting standards for business records exception, requiring detailed testimony about record-keeping procedures and contemporaneous creation practices.
Understanding the Business Records Exception: A Fourth Department Lesson
The business records exception to the hearsay rule is a crucial tool in litigation, allowing certain documents to be admitted into evidence even when their creators aren’t available to testify. However, as attorneys know well, meeting the foundational requirements for this exception can be more challenging than it initially appears.
The Fourth Department’s decision in People v Batjer provides an excellent illustration of just how precise courts can be when evaluating whether business records qualify for admission. This case involved records from BTS (a tissue bank) that were incorporated into the record-keeping system of Regeneration Technologies, Inc. (RTI), a human tissue processing company. While RTI’s employee could testify about their own company’s procedures, the gap in knowledge about BTS’s practices proved fatal to the admission of these records.
This decision underscores the importance of having witnesses who can speak directly to the record-keeping procedures and business practices of the entity that originally created the documents in question.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
People v Batjer, 2010 NY Slip Op 06825 (4th Dept. 2010)
“We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in admitting in evidence certain records of BTS inasmuch as the People failed to establish that the records fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 ; CPL 60.10). An employee of Regeneration Technologies, Inc. (RTI), a human tissue processing company that contracts with BTS, testified that RTI relied on the records submitted by BTS, which were incorporated into RTI’s records following a reconciliation process. The employee also testified that RTI was required to maintain those records, that the records were made in the regular course of RTI’s business, and that RTI maintained those records in the regular course of business. However, the RTI employee was not familiar with the record-keeping procedures of BTS and thus was unable to testify whether BTS made the records contemporaneously with the events being recorded, whether the records in question were made in the regular course of the business of BTS, or whether it was in fact the regular course of the business of BTS to make such records.”
This is a pretty exacting standard.
Key Takeaway
The Fourth Department’s decision demonstrates that even when records are properly maintained by one business entity, courts require specific testimony about the original creator’s record-keeping practices. Simply incorporating external records into your own business system isn’t sufficient to establish the business records foundation under CPLR 4518.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 post, CPLR 4518 and the business records exception may have been subject to amendments or clarifying case law that could affect foundational requirements and admissibility standards. Practitioners should verify current statutory provisions and recent Fourth Department precedent when establishing the foundation for business records evidence.
