Key Takeaway
Court ruling clarifies CPLR 4518(a) certification requirements for police accident reports as business records in New York personal injury cases.
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.
The admissibility of police accident reports in New York personal injury litigation hinges on strict procedural requirements under the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR). Section 4518 governs the admission of business records, which can be crucial evidence in motor vehicle accident cases. However, courts consistently reject improperly authenticated documents, even official police reports.
CPLR 4518 contains multiple subsections with distinct certification requirements. Subsection (a) requires specific foundational elements for business records, including proper certification by the record custodian. This differs from subsection (c), which addresses records kept in the regular course of business. Understanding these distinctions is critical for practitioners seeking to admit documentary evidence.
The Hazzard v. Burrowes decision demonstrates how courts strictly enforce these evidentiary rules. When police reports lack proper certification, they become inadmissible hearsay, potentially undermining a party’s case. This ruling aligns with other New York decisions that have challenged 4518(a) requirements, emphasizing the importance of proper authentication procedures.
Case Background
Hazzard v. Burrowes involved a motor vehicle accident where the defendant moved for summary judgment. As part of the motion, the defendant attempted to introduce a police accident report as evidence supporting their version of events. The report contained statements from both parties about how the accident occurred, which the defendant argued demonstrated the plaintiff’s comparative fault.
The plaintiff objected to the admission of the police report, arguing it lacked proper certification under CPLR 4518(a). The defendant argued the report should be admitted as a business record or that the statements within the report fell within exceptions to the hearsay rule. The Second Department considered whether the police report met the technical requirements for admission as a certified business record.
The court’s analysis focused on the distinction between different subsections of CPLR 4518 and whether the defendant satisfied the specific certification requirements applicable to police accident reports.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Hazzard v Burrowes, 2012 NY Slip Op 03409 (2d Dept. 2012)
“Moreover, the police accident report was inadmissible, as it was not certified as a business record (see CPLR 4518(a)), and the statements by both the appellant and Burrowes were self-serving, did not fall within any exception to the hearsay rule, and bore upon the ultimate issues of fact to be decided by the jury”
4518(a) v. 4518 (c) ?
Key Takeaway
The Hazzard decision underscores that police accident reports require proper certification under CPLR 4518(a) to be admissible as business records. Jason’s notation about comparing subsections (a) and (c) highlights an important distinction practitioners must understand when authenticating documentary evidence in personal injury cases.
Legal Significance
The Second Department’s strict interpretation of CPLR 4518(a) certification requirements reflects broader judicial commitment to maintaining evidentiary standards even for seemingly routine documents like police reports. While police accident reports enjoy a presumption of reliability in everyday contexts, their admission in civil litigation demands compliance with technical authentication procedures designed to ensure trustworthiness and provide opportunities for cross-examination.
Jason’s observation about the distinction between subsections (a) and (c) raises a critical question for practitioners: does the certification required for police reports differ from certification requirements for other business records? Subsection (a) addresses certification generally, while subsection (c) specifically addresses hospital records and other medical documentation. Understanding which subsection applies to particular documents can determine whether evidence survives admissibility challenges.
The court’s additional holding that statements within the report constituted inadmissible hearsay reinforces that even properly certified documents may contain inadmissible content. Certification authenticates the document’s creation and maintenance, but does not automatically validate the truth of factual assertions contained within it.
Practical Implications
Attorneys relying on police accident reports must ensure proper certification before submitting them as evidence. This typically requires obtaining a certification from the police department records custodian attesting that the report was made in the regular course of police business and maintained according to standard procedures. Simply attaching an uncertified police report to motion papers invites successful objections and potential exclusion.
Practitioners should also recognize that even properly certified police reports may contain inadmissible hearsay statements. Strategic use of such reports requires identifying which portions qualify for admission under business records or other exceptions, and which portions constitute inadmissible hearsay. When statements within reports are self-serving or bear on ultimate issues of liability, courts will scrutinize them carefully regardless of certification status.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 post, CPLR 4518 has undergone several amendments affecting business records certification requirements, and New York courts have issued additional precedential decisions interpreting subsection (a) authentication standards. Practitioners should verify current statutory language and recent case law developments regarding police report admissibility and certification procedures.
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
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
Business records from the Fourth Department
Fourth Department case demonstrates exacting standards for business records exception, requiring detailed testimony about record-keeping procedures and contemporaneous creation...
Oct 6, 2010
Expert Testimony and Medical Journals: Navigating New York Courts
Understanding expert testimony rules for medical journals and treatises in New York courts. Legal analysis for personal injury and medical malpractice cases. Call 516-750-0595.
Oct 10, 2009
Another unsuccessful 4518(a) challenge
Court rules EUO scheduling letters don't need business records exception when offered to prove mailing, not truth of contents, expanding non-hearsay doctrine.
Sep 16, 2016
No credentials? No issue of fact
Court dismisses expert affidavit lacking credentials and objective testing in personal injury case, highlighting foundation requirements for expert testimony.
May 21, 2013Common 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.
