All you wanted to know about 4518(a) but were afraid to ask

All Borough Group Med. Supply, Inc. v Geico Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 23262 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)

“At the outset, we note that plaintiff was not required to lay a CPLR 4518 (a) foundation for the assignment of benefits form. An assignment of benefits is not hearsay; like a contract, it has independent legal significance and need only be authenticated to be admisible (sic)(see Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. v Leadership Software, Inc., 12 F3d 527, 540 ; see also Beal-Medea Prods., Inc. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 135, 2012 NY Slip Op 51347 ). However, plaintiff was attempting to use the delivery receipt and claim form to prove the transactions recorded therein, and so was required to lay a CPLR 4518 (a) foundation for those records.”

“If a record is made in the regular course of business, it is the regular course of business to make the record, and the record is made at or about the time of the event being recorded, the record can be admitted into evidence pursuant to the CPLR 4518 (a) business records hearsay exception.”

“A review of the evidence adduced at trial shows that plaintiff’s witness was employed by plaintiff prior to, during, and after the time that defendant had provided the supplies to plaintiff. The witness testified he and another person who was no longer employed by plaintiff had generated all of plaintiff’s claim forms, and that his father, who was the owner of plaintiff, had generated the delivery receipts. The witness also testified, albeit inartfully, that he was familiar with plaintiff’s office routine and that plaintiff’s delivery receipts and claim forms were routinely and contemporaneously made in the course of plaintiff’s business, and that it is plaintiff’s regular business practice to make such records.”

“In addition, CPLR 4518 (a) provides that a witness’s lack of personal knowledge affects the weight of the record, not the admissibility of the record.”

So consider this a basic evidence lesson from the Appellate Term.

Related Articles

• The Court offers some guidance as to the business records exception
• Understanding Third-Party Billing Records in New York No-Fault Claims: Appellate Term’s First Application of Carothers
• Pine Hollow Dead: Business Records Rule Restored in NY Personal Injury Law
• Prima facie: schizophrenia from the Appellate Term
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 post, CPLR 4518(a) business records requirements and foundations may have been refined through subsequent case law interpretations and court rule amendments. Practitioners should verify current evidentiary standards for business records authentication, particularly regarding foundation requirements for medical supply billing records and assignments of benefits in no-fault insurance cases.