4518(a)

Last reviewed: September 2026.

Looking for the complete rule? This post analyzes one business-records decision. For the full practitioner’s guide to CPLR § 4518 — foundation elements, leading cases, and practice pointers — see CPLR § 4518 Business Records: The New York Practitioner’s Guide.

Under New York’s evidence law, CPLR § 4518(a) creates a business records exception to the hearsay rule, allowing certain documents to be admitted if they meet specific foundational requirements. However, police accident reports present unique challenges because they often contain double hearsay—the officer’s observations plus statements from witnesses or parties to the accident. When courts admit uncertified police reports or allow defendants to submit contradictory affidavits, complex evidentiary questions arise about the interplay between documentary evidence and witness testimony.

The case discussed below illustrates how appellate courts treat police accident reports in motor vehicle negligence cases, particularly when the report contains statements allegedly made by a defendant that conflict with their subsequent sworn testimony. This tension between documentary evidence and live testimony raises important questions about New York’s formalistic approach to evidence rules and whether practical considerations should sometimes override strict adherence to certification requirements.

Case Background

This rear-end collision case involved competing narratives about how the accident occurred. The plaintiff submitted his own affidavit establishing that the defendant Blackman struck his vehicle while it was stopped and waiting to make a right turn—the classic rear-end scenario that typically establishes prima facie liability. However, Blackman submitted an affidavit claiming the plaintiff’s vehicle was double-parked and suddenly cut in front of him when attempting to make a right turn.

The plaintiff sought to use an uncertified police accident report that purportedly contained admissions by Blackman inconsistent with his affidavit. The court’s treatment of this evidence highlights the technical requirements for admitting police reports and the practical difficulties that arise when certification is unavailable.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis

Yassin v Blackman, 188 AD3d 62 (2d Dept. 2020).

Double hearsay

“In this case, even without the police accident report, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability through his own affidavit, which established that Blackman was negligent in striking the plaintiff’s vehicle while it was stopped and waiting to make a right turn (see Montalvo v Cedeno, 170 AD3d 1166, 1167; Martinez v Allen, 163 AD3d 951, 952). However, in opposition, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to Blackman’s negligence, through the submission of, inter alia, Blackman’s affidavit, in which he claimed that the plaintiff’s vehicle was double-parked to the right side of his vehicle, and that “s I attempted to pass the , the laintiff … suddenly moved forward and cut me off to get in front of my vehicle in order make a right turn” (see Ortiz v Hub Truck Rental Corp., 82 AD3d 725, 727; Reitz v Seagate Trucking, Inc., 71 AD3d 975, 976).

Since the uncertified police accident report was inadmissible, we do not reach the plaintiff’s contention that Blackman’s affidavit should be disregarded as a feigned attempt to avoid the consequences of the admission he purportedly made to the police officer who prepared the police accident report (see generally Abramov v Miral Corp., 24 AD3d 397, 398).”

Jason’s original criticism, preserved as commentary rather than a rule of evidence:

The problem I have with this case is that oftentimes, the DMV does take possession of local police reports. This makes the certification process difficult. I also do not see why the reports can be entered subject to a challenge from the opponent alleging on affidavit that the facts in the report are not true. This is just silliness and typical New York form over substance nonsense.

Legal Significance

The court rejected this uncertified report because no alternative foundation had been supplied. A party admission inside the report did not cure the missing foundation for the report itself. While this approach protects against unreliable hearsay, it can produce results that seem divorced from the search for truth. The admissibility question comes before a credibility comparison between an alleged recorded statement and a later affidavit.

Jason Tenenbaum’s critique raises important policy considerations. Record access can require identifying the appropriate custodian. The opinion does not establish that certification is impossible when another agency holds a report. Jason proposed a different approach in his commentary. That proposal is not the rule adopted by the court.

The decision also touches on the “feigned affidavit” doctrine established in Abramov v Miral Corp. Under this doctrine, courts may disregard affidavits that contradict a party’s earlier admissions when the contradiction appears to be a transparent attempt to manufacture a factual dispute. However, because the police report was inadmissible, the court never reached the question of whether Blackman’s affidavit should be disregarded as feigned.

Practical Implications

For plaintiffs in motor vehicle accident cases, this decision underscores the critical importance of properly certifying police reports before attempting to use them as evidence. Attorneys should obtain certified copies directly from the police agency that prepared the report, and if the agency no longer maintains the records, they should document their efforts to obtain certification to potentially preserve the issue for appeal.

For an evidentiary objection, identify the missing foundation and the particular statement offered. Lack of certification is not dispositive if another proper foundation has been supplied. Yassin also reserved a distinct question concerning hearsay in opposition accompanied by other evidence.

More broadly, the decision highlights a tension in New York’s evidence law between formalism and pragmatism. While strict rules provide certainty, they can also exclude reliable evidence and allow parties to escape the consequences of their contemporaneous statements. The practical response is to identify a proper foundation for the report and an admissible basis for the statement inside it, not to assume a certification-only rule.

Identify the decision and the two evidentiary levels

The excerpt is from Yassin v Blackman, 188 AD3d 62, decided September 23, 2020. The Second Department rejected using a party admission to bypass the missing foundation for the police report containing it. The plaintiff’s own affidavit made an initial showing, but the defendant’s account raised a factual dispute, and judgment was denied.

There are two questions: whether the report itself is properly before the court, and whether the statement recorded inside it is admissible for the offered purpose. Satisfying one does not necessarily satisfy the other.

Certification is a route, not a cure for every statement

A proper certification can establish the required foundation for an eligible record. It does not turn an unidentified bystander’s account into admissible proof of how an accident happened. Identify the speaker and the basis for admitting that speaker’s statement.

Yassin also recognized foundation by another proper method. The shorthand that every uncertified report is always inadmissible is too broad. What failed there was a report lacking certification or another foundation, offered affirmatively to support summary judgment.

The court expressly reserved a different question about hearsay submitted in opposition together with other evidence. That reservation is not permission to rely solely on an unsupported report. The Maynard note addresses the separate problem of opposing liability judgment when the driver knows the relevant facts.

Obtain the record and identify its source early

Counsel reviewing an accident report should identify the preparing agency, the available certification and any separate basis for a statement within the report. Keep the complete report, not just the narrative paragraph. A cropped excerpt may omit information identifying the source.

If the desired evidence is an admission, identify where and to whom the statement was made. Determine whether it can be proved through a competent witness or another admissible route. The existence of a statement in an unauthenticated report does not supply that route by itself.

Jason’s original criticism concerns the practical difficulty of obtaining records. It is not an evidentiary exception. Documenting an unsuccessful request may explain a discovery problem, but it does not automatically make the resulting exhibit admissible.

A contradiction argument comes after admissibility

A party may argue that a later affidavit was tailored to avoid an earlier admission. First establish a permissible evidentiary basis for the earlier statement. Yassin did not reach the proposed contradiction argument because the report was inadmissible in the form submitted.

For a motion file, you have to separate out the original observation and the recorded statement from counsel’s inferences from those two things. And don’t resolve credibility by saying that an affidavit is false just because an uncertified narrative conflicts with it, right? The question is whether or not the evidence that has been submitted eliminates or raises a material factual dispute under the applicable standard.

Historical note: Yassin rejected an admission-based shortcut around a missing report foundation and reserved a distinct opposition question; read it with CPLR 4518(a) and (c), not as a universal certification-only rule.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Start with the CPLR 4518 business-records hub. Compare the evidentiary purpose, witness knowledge and result in these notes:

• V.S. Medical: the missing trial foundation
• Brannon: incorporated records and competing opinions
• Etienne: third-party billing and the later appeal
• Jones: retrieval versus knowledge of record creation

For help assessing evidence in a pending civil matter, contact the firm with the complete records, motion papers and any court order. This historical discussion is general information, not advice on a particular file.