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 INSTALLATION OF LARGE INDVIDUAL LETTERS FOR A SIGN ON THE FRONT SOFFIT OF A BUILDING CONSTITUTED “ALTERING” THE BUILDING TO WHICH LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) APPLY; BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OF THE SOFFIT (WHICH COLLAPSED), THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Jury Should Have Been Instructed on Intoxication Where an Element of Some of the Charged Offenses Could Have Been Negated by Defendant’s Intoxication
THE REFEREE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE AS AN APPARENT SANCTION FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR; THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
THE MAJORITY HELD THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK WAS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE IT OCCURRED CLOSE IN TIME TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST ON THE STREET AND WAS JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES; THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BACKPACK WAS WITHIN THE GRABBABLE AREA AND NO PROOF OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES (SECOND DEPT).
Abutting-Property-Owners Not Responsible for Defects in Sidewalk Tree Wells/City Did Not Have Written Notice of Defect in Tree Well Where Plaintiff Fell
Amendment of Bill of Particulars After Four Years of Discovery Should Not Have Been Allowed
DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH, MATTER REMITTED FOR A SUPPRESSION HEARING BECAUSE AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER A MATTER NOT RULED UPON BELOW.
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DISCOVERY WOULD LEAD TO EVIDENCE ESSENTIAL TO DEFEND AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT). ​

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...