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.
Business Records Evidence Law Under Scrutiny
The admission of business records in New York courts continues to evolve through appellate decisions that shape how medical providers and insurance companies present evidence in no-fault cases. Under CPLR 4518(a), business records can be admitted into evidence without the need for a sponsoring witness, provided they meet specific foundational requirements. This streamlined process is particularly crucial in no-fault insurance litigation, where medical records and billing documentation form the backbone of most claims.
The intersection of business records law and no-fault insurance creates frequent disputes over what constitutes proper foundation for admission. Courts must balance the efficiency of allowing records without live testimony against the need to ensure reliability and authenticity. When appellate courts interpret these standards differently, it creates uncertainty for practitioners handling business records challenges and can significantly impact case outcomes.
Recent decisions from various departments have taken differing approaches to business records admission, creating a patchwork of precedent that practitioners must navigate carefully. The Fourth Department’s approach has sometimes diverged from other appellate divisions, highlighting the need for consistent statewide guidance.
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.
Viviane Etienne Medical Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 77673(U) (Motion No: 2011-04221)(2d Dept. 2011)
Lower decision citation: Viviane Etienne Medical Care, P.C. v. Country-Wide Ins. Co., 31 Misc.3d 21 (App. Term 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dis. 2011).
This was the case, if you recall, where the Appellate Term, Second Department for the first time construed Carothers v. Geico, 79 AD3d 864 ). I have this gut feeling the Appellate Division is going to reverse the Appellate Term this time.
Key Takeaway
This case represents a critical juncture in business records law, as the Appellate Division reviews the Appellate Term’s interpretation of the Carothers precedent. The outcome could establish important guidance for how courts evaluate the foundation requirements for business records in no-fault cases, potentially affecting the admissibility standards that medical providers and insurers must meet when presenting documentary evidence.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since 2011, CPLR 4518(a) business records admission standards have been subject to continued appellate interpretation and potential procedural refinements through court rules amendments. Practitioners should verify current foundational requirements and any updates to business records authentication procedures, as appellate decisions may have further clarified or modified the standards discussed in this post.
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, 20264518(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, 2020An interesting discovery case involving the right to obtain alcohol treatment records
Expert analysis of medical records discovery rights in NY personal injury cases. L.T. v Teva Pharms case study. Call (516) 750-0595 for consultation.
Mar 24, 2010Some newer cases
Recent 2008 New York no-fault insurance procedural decisions on stipulations, discovery sanctions, and precluded defenses affecting Nassau, Suffolk, Queens litigation.
Nov 16, 2008Signature Authentication Requirements in New York Criminal Trials: Foundation Rules for Impeachment
New York court upholds signature authentication and foundation requirements for prior inconsistent statements in cross-examination.
Feb 12, 2015Another really intelligent appeal
Court of Appeals decision on no-fault insurance claims showing plaintiff's burden of proof and proper use of denial forms as evidence in New York cases.
Aug 18, 2011Was 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.