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.
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.
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, 2020
Business 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, 2019![Business records (CPLR 4518[a]) back to the Appellate Division](https://cdn.jtnylaw.com/blog/business-records-cplr-4518a-back-to-the-appellate-division.avif)
Business 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)
Jul 7, 2011
The 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, 2010
Not 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, 2018
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, 2016Was 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.
