Uncertified police report valid to the extent there is an admission

Police reports often play a crucial role in personal injury litigation, but their admissibility can be complicated by certification requirements and hearsay rules. A recent Second Department decision clarifies an important exception: when a police report contains a defendant’s admission, that portion becomes admissible evidence regardless of whether the report is certified. This ruling has significant implications for plaintiffs seeking to establish liability in motor vehicle accident cases.

The traditional rule in New York treats police reports as inadmissible hearsay unless properly certified under CPLR 4518(a), which permits certified records of public agencies to be admitted as evidence of the facts contained therein. This certification requirement protects against unreliable or fabricated documents while providing an efficient mechanism for introducing routine public records. However, the certification process creates practical challenges, as officers who authored reports years earlier may be unavailable, records custodians may struggle to authenticate old reports, and certification procedures can vary between police departments and jurisdictions.

The admission exception doctrine carved out by New York courts provides an important counterbalance to strict certification requirements. Under well-established evidentiary principles, a party’s own statements against interest are admissible regardless of whether they appear in otherwise inadmissible documents. This exception rests on the reliability theory that people rarely make false statements damaging to their own legal interests. When defendants make admissions to police officers at accident scenes, those statements carry high reliability because they were made spontaneously, before defendants consulted attorneys, and under circumstances where fabrication to help their legal position was unlikely.

The interplay between certification requirements and the admission exception creates strategic opportunities and challenges for litigants. Plaintiffs must identify defendant admissions within police reports and distinguish them from inadmissible hearsay statements by witnesses or conclusions by investigating officers. Defense attorneys must scrutinize whether statements attributed to defendants were actually admissions or merely neutral observations that do not constitute statements against interest. The procedural vehicle for challenging admissibility typically involves motions in limine before trial or objections during trial when parties attempt to introduce police reports.

The case involves a pedestrian-vehicle collision where the defendant driver’s statements to police became a key piece of evidence. Understanding how courts handle business records and evidentiary standards is essential for practitioners navigating these complex admissibility issues.

Case Background

Lesaldo v Dabas involved a pedestrian plaintiff who was struck by a vehicle operated by the defendant while crossing an intersection in a marked crosswalk. The defendant was making a left turn at the time of impact. Following the collision, police officers responded to the scene and prepared an accident report. During the investigation, the defendant made statements to police regarding how the accident occurred, including representations about what she observed immediately before striking the plaintiff.

The plaintiff subsequently filed a personal injury action and moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. In support of the motion, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit describing the accident circumstances and also relied on the police accident report. Critically, the police report documented that the defendant had admitted to investigating officers that she did not see the plaintiff walking in the crosswalk as she attempted to make the left turn. This admission directly supported the plaintiff’s theory that the defendant failed to yield the right-of-way to the pedestrian in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law.

The defendant opposed the summary judgment motion and raised evidentiary challenges to the police report, arguing it was uncertified and therefore inadmissible. The defendant also submitted an affidavit contradicting the statement attributed to her in the police report, claiming instead that the plaintiff was not crossing within the crosswalk and that the impact occurred beyond the intersection. The motion presented the court with competing versions of events and required determination of whether the uncertified police report could be considered on the summary judgment motion despite the defendant’s objection and subsequent contradictory testimony.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Lesaldo v Dabas, 2016 NY Slip Op 04181 (2d Dept. 2016)

“The plaintiff’s affidavit and the police accident report, which contained the defendant’s admission to the effect that she did not see the plaintiff walking in the crosswalk as she [*2]attempted to make the left turn, were sufficient to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Zhu v Natale, 131 AD3d at 608; Brown v Mackiewicz, 120 AD3d at 1173; Ramos v Bartis, 112 AD3d 804; Brown v Pinkett, 110 AD3d 1024). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, that portion of the uncertified police accident report which contained her admission was admissible (see Gezelter v Pecora, 129 AD3d 1021, 1022-1023).

In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendant’s affidavit wherein she averred that the plaintiff was not crossing the street within the crosswalk and that the impact occurred at least two car lengths past the intersection contradicted her prior admission. The defendant made no effort in opposition to explain the admission in the police report or deny its accuracy”

Legal Significance

The Lesaldo decision reinforces the well-established principle that party admissions constitute an independent exception to the hearsay rule and certification requirements that would otherwise render police reports inadmissible. This holding aligns with a strong body of Second Department precedent recognizing that when defendants make statements against their legal interests, those admissions are admissible regardless of the documentary form in which they are preserved. The practical effect is that plaintiffs can use police reports strategically in summary judgment motions without bearing the burden of obtaining certification, provided the reports contain clear defendant admissions.

Equally significant is the court’s treatment of the defendant’s contradictory affidavit. The Second Department held that a defendant cannot defeat summary judgment merely by submitting an affidavit contradicting their prior admission without explaining the inconsistency or denying the accuracy of the earlier statement. This principle prevents defendants from manufacturing issues of fact through convenient memory changes or strategic misrepresentations after consulting with counsel. Courts require defendants who wish to retract or contradict prior admissions to provide credible explanations for the inconsistency, such as demonstrating the original statement was misunderstood, taken out of context, or recorded incorrectly by investigating officers.

The decision creates important strategic considerations for summary judgment practice. Plaintiffs moving for summary judgment should carefully review police reports for any statements by defendants that constitute admissions of fault or admissions of facts supporting liability. These admissions need not be explicit confessions of negligence; statements about what the defendant observed, failed to observe, or did immediately before an accident can constitute powerful admissions supporting liability. Defense counsel must advise clients that statements made to police at accident scenes can be used against them throughout litigation, even if police reports are never formally certified.

Practical Implications

Plaintiffs’ attorneys should obtain police reports immediately after accidents and analyze them carefully for defendant admissions. When admissions appear in reports, counsel should consider early summary judgment motions on liability, as these motions can force settlement or bifurcate proceedings to allow damages to be determined separately. The Lesaldo framework provides a roadmap for summary judgment success: combine the plaintiff’s affidavit establishing basic accident facts with the defendant’s admission from the police report to demonstrate prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Defense attorneys must carefully counsel clients about statements made to police at accident scenes. Defendants should understand that spontaneous admissions can be used against them even years later, regardless of whether police reports are certified. When defendants have made damaging admissions documented in police reports, defense counsel should immediately conduct thorough investigations to determine whether the statements can be explained, contextualized, or challenged. If defendants wish to contradict prior admissions in opposing summary judgment, their affidavits must specifically address the inconsistency and provide credible explanations rather than simply offering a different version of events.

Trial courts reviewing summary judgment motions involving uncertified police reports must conduct careful analysis of whether statements attributed to defendants constitute true admissions or merely neutral observations. Not every statement in a police report qualifies for the admission exception. Courts should scrutinize whether statements were voluntarily made by the defendant, accurately recorded by investigating officers, and constitute statements against the defendant’s legal interests. When admissions are properly established and defendants offer contradictory testimony without adequate explanation, summary judgment should be granted rather than allowing contradictory affidavits to automatically create triable issues of fact.

Key Takeaway

The Second Department confirmed that uncertified police reports are admissible when they contain defendant admissions. Courts will not allow defendants to simply contradict their previous statements without explanation. This principle strengthens plaintiffs’ ability to use police reports strategically, even when facing challenges regarding the authoritative nature of such documentation in establishing liability.

Related Articles

• 4518(a)
• Proof insufficient to prove the accident was intentional
• Police report and CPLR 4518(a)