You are here: / / “BEST EVIDENCE RULE” CRITERIA EXPLAINED; NOT MET HERE.
,

“BEST EVIDENCE RULE” CRITERIA EXPLAINED; NOT MET HERE.

The Second Department determined defendant did not meet the requirements of the best evidence rule and defendant’s summary judgment motion should not have been granted.  Defendant argued that plaintiff’s breach of contract action was time-barred because a pricing offer/customer agreement included a shortened statute of limitations (one year). However, defendant produced only unsigned documents together with an employee’s (Muscillo’s) affidavit saying the original signed document was likely lost. The Second Department explained why that evidence was not sufficient under the best evidence rule:

“The best evidence rule requires the production of an original writing where its contents are in dispute and are sought to be proven” … . “The rule serves mainly to protect against fraud, perjury and inaccuracies . . . which derive from faulty memory'” … . Under an exception to the best evidence rule, “secondary evidence of the contents of an unproduced original may be admitted upon threshold factual findings by the trial court that the proponent of the substitute has sufficiently explained the unavailability of the primary evidence and has not procured its loss or destruction in bad faith” … . “Loss may be established upon a showing of a diligent search in the location where the document was last known to have been kept, and through the testimony of the person who last had custody of the original. Indeed, the more important the document to the resolution of the ultimate issue in the case, the stricter becomes the requirement of the evidentiary foundation establishing loss for the admission of secondary evidence” … .

Here, given the significance of the lost original Pricing Offer to the issue of whether the action was time-barred, Muscillo’s conclusory averments were insufficient to explain its unavailability … . The defendant did not submit an affidavit from the person who last had custody of the original 2010 Pricing Offer, or from a person with personal knowledge of the search for it.

Even if the defendant’s submissions were sufficient to establish the unavailability of the original Pricing Offer, Muscillo’s affidavit was insufficient secondary evidence that an original signed agreement ever existed. Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v Kingston Oil Supply Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 09059, 2nd Dept 12-9-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

CONTRACT LAW (BEST EVIDENCE RULE, FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE AGREEMENT TO SHORTENED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)/EVIDENCE (BEST EVIDENCE RULE, FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE AGREEMENT TO SHORTENED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)/BEST EVIDENCE RULE (FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE AGREEMENT TO SHORTENED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)

You might also like
THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE ASSESSEMENT OF RISK LEVEL POINTS WHICH WERE NOT REQUESTED BY THE PEOPLE OR THE BOARD VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE CITY IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, NO SUCH MOTION WAS BEFORE THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS NOT MET; PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR AND PARKING LOT MANAGER NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND FALL UNDER ESPINAL (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO APPOINT NEW COUNSEL IN THE THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING, AFTER RELIEVING FATHER’S PRIOR COUNSEL, VIOLATED FATHER’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
NEITHER THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOR THE CITY WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
DISMISSAL OF INTENTIONAL TORT CAUSES OF ACTION PRECLUDED SUBSEQUENT ACTION SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENCE, NO NEGLIGENT ASSAULT IN NEW YORK.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NOTE WITH 12% INTEREST RATE FOR LESS THAN A YEAR WAS USURIOUS. COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES HAS THE POWER TO DENY RELICENSING TO DRIVER CONVICTED...