Rodriguez v New York City Tr. Auth., 2011 NY Slip Op 01258 (2d Dept. 2011)
“We agree with the defendant that the Supreme Court erred in precluding it from introducing into evidence two accident reports. The accident reports were made in the regular course of business and were admissible under CPLR 4518(a). A business record is admissible even though the person who prepared it is available to testify to the acts or transactions recorded.”
At the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, our attorneys have the integrity and experience you need to best assist, advise, and support you through your legal challenge, every step of the way.
Using cutting-edge technology and strategy to solve complicated problems.
We can fight for your pain and suffering, lost income, medical bills, and any future lost wages.
You have the right to bring a malpractice claim for your medical expenses, lost income and pain and suffering.
If you have been sued for an unpaid consumer loan, fallen behind on your credit card bills or similar.
We can help when you are faced with commercial litigation issues.
We work hard to fight for your individual case and rights, while providing superior legal services on a timely, effective, and efficient basis.
Proin rhoncus metus aliquet blandit ad placerat sociosqu erat vel letius scelerisque taciti pulvinar.
Proin rhoncus metus aliquet blandit ad placerat sociosqu erat vel letius scelerisque taciti pulvinar.
10 Responses
Yes very simple J.T. Query. There is a statement from a witness in the accident report. The witness is not a member of the Police. What happens to the statement. It is redacted because there is no business duty of declarant to make the statement.
Query. Police accident reports from say NYPD are routinely sent to a federal agency that allocates funds for highway improvement. NYPD must send these reports as part of their business. Federal agency relies on these reports in determining what projects need limited funding. In NY State Court can the federal agency get the accident reports into evidence via business record exception.
Absolutely. So why the recent App Term decision. Oh that would not be a no fault case.
SHAMELESS PLUG … AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT ON ZUPPA’S PIT RE THE FUTURE OF THE PIT.
I should have edited for content, but I enjoyed the PIT. I just did not like being named in it that one time. Name Sun Tzu…
Jason I praised you. Clients want a lawyer that the Courts like. That’s why no more over the top for me. Useful content on the law on the Internet or nothing.
You are a good man Ray Zuppa…(sometimes). I am also glad you have seen the light about avoiding incendiary commentary on the internet…or have you 🙂
I love the Appellate Division 2nd. The quoted langauge from the decision is right out of Richardsons. For those of you that do not have it I commend you to purchase Richardson’s on evidence. He lays out the business record foundation with a number of variants including the case law.
Keep it with your New York Practice although the First Department and the Court of Appeals disagree with Mr. Seigal and his case law viz Article 78’s against a corporation because a corporation is a creature of the state.
Court missed a step. This was not a certified police report. No aff was provided regarding authenticity.
The Court appears to be merely accepting the hearsay assertion of counsel that it was an accurate police report and a real police report.
CPLR 4518 was used to simply gloss over this point; it can’t be a business record if it is not established as a legit record in the first instance.
This Court, once again, missed a step, which will cause problems in the future.
Notably, the Appellate Division, Second Department showed a lack of understanding of CPLR 4518 and the rules of evidence by virtue of Art Of Healing.
Check your mailbox – I just filed a Notice of Appeal against you. I believe the torrent of appeals between us are starting all over again. I suspect you will have about 15-20 NOA’s coming from me pretty soon. So, don’t say I never share the love. Besides, how else will I ever get to see you unless it is at the Term. I enjoy dueling you – I cannot say that about too many out there. See you soon.
That is not me that you are seeing in the Term, just to be clear….
Just none of that procedural monkey business and we won’t have to be mean to you in the briefs. Did I mention I amjured both civ and crim procedure and evidence in the law school days?
Too funny Sun. I used to write opps to 440s, habeus’, and Respondent’s briefs to the County Court and the 4th Dept in law school. You are never mean to mean in your briefs. If you were, I would have let you known.
I would love to do nothing but 440s. The investigation is the fun part. Putting together the evidence. Making your case. No pressure. Dudes in already.
I wish I could make 35k a year doing just 440s. I would bounce “off the books” on weekends to close the gap.