You are here: / / A COMPUTER PRINTOUT FROM THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF STATE WEBSITE PURPORTING...
,

A COMPUTER PRINTOUT FROM THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF STATE WEBSITE PURPORTING TO SHOW THE LOCATION OF DEFENDANT’S PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS FOR VENUE PURPOSES WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS A BUSINESS RECORD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s submission of a computer printout from the NYS Department of State website was insufficient to prove defendant’s principal place of business was in Kings County. Defendant had submitted its certificate of incorporation designating Richmond County as its principal place of business. Therefore plaintiff did not demonstrate the proper venue for this traffic accident case was Kings County. Plaintiff lived in New Jersey and the accident occurred in Ulster County:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant’s certificate of incorporation had been amended to designate a principal office located in Kings County … or that the venue selected was otherwise proper. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, a computer printout from the website of the New York State Department of State, Division of Corporations, submitted by the plaintiff, did not conclusively establish that Kings County is a proper venue for this action. The printout was not certified or authenticated, and it was not supported by a factual foundation sufficient to demonstrate its admissibility as a business record … . Faulkner v Best Trails & Travel Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 01770, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: Here a printout from the NYS Department of State purporting to show the location of defendant’s principal place of business was not admissible in this dispute over proper venue. The printout was not certified or authenticated and was not supported by a factual foundation sufficient for admissibility as a business record.

 

You might also like
THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENDANT TOWN’S AND POLICE-OFFICER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS UNEQUIVOCAL AND DEMONSTRATED THE OFFICERS DID NOT VIOLATE THE “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD WHEN PURSUING PLAINTIFF MOTORCYCLIST, WHO CRASHED AND WAS SERIOUSLY INJURED; THERE WAS NO INDICATION FURTHER DISCOVERY WOULD UNCOVER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT). ​
MOTHER’S INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND EVASIVE TESTIMONY DID NOT AMOUNT TO “FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT” WARRANTING THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AS A SANCTION (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE, WHETHER THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A CONDITION HE WAS HIRED TO REPAIR; SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED ON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, NOT NYC, PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE TREATED AS TRUE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD (SECOND DEPT).
GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CAUSES OF ACTION IN AMENDED COMPLAINT RELATED BACK TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WERE NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
Motion to Vacate Convictions Granted—People Failed to Provide “Brady” Material In Time for the Defense to Make Meaningful Use of It
THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ROAD DEFECT WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT, BUT IT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DEFECT; THEREFORE THE VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DRIVER WHO ALLEGEDLY INJURED PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR A SUBCONTRACTOR WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE THREE DEFENDANTS, THE OTHER TWO DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE DRIVER WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLING THEM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH THE INFANT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL;... THE “SOLE REMEDY REPURCHASE PROTOCOL” IN THIS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED...