Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing business records coverage, with 145 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.
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:
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
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.
Related Articles
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.
145 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
New York's CPLR 2106 permits affirmations in place of many sworn documents. See the 2024 and 2025 changes, exceptions, and historical case notes.
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
Business records "from another mother"
Court rules on admissibility of business records from liquidated insurance company in no-fault case, exploring the incorporation doctrine for successor entities.
Jan 28, 2019
Hearsay
Court ruling on limiting cross-examination of medical examiner regarding non-authoritative texts and hearsay evidence not admitted at trial.
Aug 28, 2014
Expert Witness Impeachment Rules: When Authoritative Materials Can Be Used in New York
Wild and Winiarski illustrate expert-impeachment limits in New York. Learn why CPLR 4549 is not the treatise rule and why the actual foundation matters.
Jun 29, 2011
Expert Qualification Standards in New York No-Fault Cases: Understanding Professional Sufficiency Requirements
Learn how New York courts determine expert qualifications in no-fault insurance cases.
Mar 12, 2010Was this article helpful?
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.
