You are here: / / PROFFERED COPY OF A GUARANTY PROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM EVIDENCE.
,

PROFFERED COPY OF A GUARANTY PROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM EVIDENCE.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly excluded a purported copy of a guaranty from evidence and properly dismissed the complaint which sought enforcement of the guaranty. The purported original guaranty was incomplete and was withdrawn as evidence:

Supreme Court properly determined that the proffered copy of the guaranty was inadmissible as secondary evidence of the terms of the guaranty or pursuant to CPLR 4539(a). 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” … . Once the absence of an original document is excused, all competent secondary evidence is generally admissible to prove its contents … . However, the proponent of the secondary evidence has a “heavy burden of establishing, preliminarily to the court’s satisfaction, that it is a reliable and accurate portrayal of the original” … . “Thus, as a threshold matter, the trial court must be satisfied that the proffered evidence is authentic and correctly reflects the contents of the original’ before ruling on its admissibility” … .

Here, even if the plaintiff sufficiently explained the unavailability of the original guaranty … , it failed to meet its heavy burden of establishing that the proffered copy was a reliable and accurate portrayal of the original … . The plaintiff’s principal was not present when the original guaranty was executed, and thus could not testify as to whether the original guaranty was similarly missing a portion of paragraph 4, while Gluck testified that the guaranty she executed contained complete paragraphs. Further, the copy was not satisfactorily identified as a copy of the guaranty so as to be admissible as a reproduction pursuant to CPLR 4539(a) … . 76-82 St. Marks, LLC v Gluck, 2017 NY Slip Op 01329, 2nd Dept 2-22-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (PROFFERED COPY OF A GUARANTY PROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM EVIDENCE)/GUARANTY (EVIDENCE, PROFFERED COPY OF A GUARANTY PROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM EVIDENCE)/EVIDENCE (PROFFERED COPY OF A GUARANTY PROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM EVIDENCE)

You might also like
COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR A LEFT TURN SIGNAL HAD BEEN STUDIED, THEREFORE THE COUNTY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON IMMUNITY GROUNDS.
IF THE JUDGE DOES NOT LAY OUT IN DETAIL THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT JUSTIFYING A DISMISSAL OF AN ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 ARE NOT MET AND THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD FOR THE FILING OF ANOTHER COMPLAINT (CPLR 205(A)) IS AVAILABLE (SECOND DEPT).
Subcontractor Which Does Not Supervise or Control Injured Worker May Be Liable Under Common Law Negligence Where It Creates an Unreasonable Risk of Harm
THE COURT NEVER ENTERED AN ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS; THEREFORE THE TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO INTERPOSE AN ANSWER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION NEVER STARTED TO RUN (SECOND DEPT).
ORGANIZATION HAD STANDING TO CONTEST HARDSHIP WAIVER GRANTED TO MINE IN CORE PRESERVATION AREA.
Work Accident and Auto Accident Cases Should Be Consolidated Because Plaintiff Alleged Auto Accident Injuries Exacerbated by Work-Related-Accident Injuries
DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE ICE-SNOW CONDITION ON THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE 911 DISPATCHER AND THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS CONSTITUTED THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION IN THE PERFORMANCE A GOVERNMENT FUNCTION; THE GOVERNMENT FUNCTION IMMUNITY DEFENSE INSULATED THE MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS FROM LIABILITY (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

EXCLUDING A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEFENDANT ELEVATOR COMPANY FROM THE COURTROOM... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S AGENTS WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S...