Key Takeaway
New York court ruling on insurance policy declaration pages: not hearsay under CPLR 4518 and 4539, plus authentication requirements for electronic records.
This article is part of our ongoing business records coverage, with 65 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.
Brand Med. Supply, Inc. v Infinity Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50738(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
(1) “In support of its defense of exhaustion of the policy limits, defendant unsuccessfully attempted to have the applicable insurance policy’s declaration page, which set forth, among other things, the coverage limits of the policy (see e.g. Matter of Government Empls. v Ally, 106 AD3d 736 ; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Gray, 68 AD3d 1002 ), admitted into evidence. Upon a review of the record, we find that the Civil Court erred in excluding the insurance policy declaration page from evidence. Defendant was not required to lay a CPLR 4518 (a) foundation for the declaration page, since a declaration page is not hearsay, but rather, as part of an insurance contract, it “has independent legal significance and need only be authenticated to be admissible””
(2) “Here, the testimony of defendant’s senior no-fault representative sufficiently identified the document as an accurate representation of the declaration page which defendant maintained electronically (see CPLR 4539 ; Kaliontzakis v Papadakos, 69 AD3d 803). Furthermore, in describing defendant’s procedure for generating a declaration page, defendant’s witness satisfactorily set forth the “manner or method in which tampering or degradation of the reproduction is prevented” (CPLR 4539 ).”
What I want to know is why counsel could not get the document in as a business record? I am very much curious as to what happened here. Very curious.
Related Articles
- Understanding business records exception guidance from the Court
- Business records challenges to police reports
- Physician’s affirmation proving medical necessity using business records
- Third-party billing records in no-fault claims under Carothers
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2016 post was published, New York courts have continued to develop the jurisprudence around CPLR 4518 and 4539 authentication requirements, and there may have been procedural refinements regarding the admission of insurance policy declaration pages and electronic records in no-fault litigation. Practitioners should verify current appellate decisions and any updates to evidence authentication standards that may affect the admissibility of insurance documents and electronic business records.
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.
65 published articles in Business records
Keep Reading
More Business records Analysis
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, 2020Business 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, 2019Business records (CPLR 4518[a]) back to the Appellate Division
A significant business records evidence case returns to the Appellate Division after the Appellate Term's controversial interpretation of CPLR 4518(a) precedent.
Jul 7, 2011The destruction of peer hearsay: It is not hearsay – and much more
Examining peer hearsay exceptions in NY no-fault cases, medical record admissibility, and verification procedures in Urban Radiology v Tri-State Consumer.
Jun 10, 2010Not necessarily inconsistent
Court ruling clarifies that corrected affidavits with minor errors aren't necessarily inconsistent when supported by documentary evidence in business records cases.
Mar 30, 2018Another 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, 2016Common 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 happens when a no-fault policy is exhausted?
When the $50,000 PIP policy limit is reached, the insurer is no longer obligated to pay no-fault benefits. However, outstanding claims submitted before exhaustion may still be payable. The order in which claims are paid can be contested, and providers may challenge whether the insurer properly applied payments.
Can I still receive medical treatment after policy exhaustion?
Yes, but you will need alternative payment sources — your own health insurance, Medicaid, or a personal injury lawsuit against the at-fault driver. If you meet the serious injury threshold, the at-fault driver's liability coverage can pay for treatment exceeding no-fault limits.
How does priority of payment work in no-fault policy exhaustion?
Under 11 NYCRR §65-3.15, the insurer must pay claims in the order received. When multiple providers compete for remaining policy funds, disputes over priority are common. Providers whose claims were timely submitted have priority over later submissions.
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.