You are here: / / NO FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED UPON BY...
, ,

NO FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED UPON BY THE REFEREE WAS LAID; THE REFEREE RELIED ON UNIDENTIFIED AND UNPRODUCED RECORDS; THE JUDGMENT OF FORELCOSURE SHOUILD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judgment of foreclosure was not supported because the referee’s report was based on documentary evidence which was not identified or produced and for which no foundation had been laid in the relevant affidavit:

… [T]he referee relied on an affidavit of Tom Croft, an “SVP of default” of Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, attorney-in-fact for the plaintiff. Croft’s affidavit was insufficient to establish a proper foundation for the admission of a business record pursuant to CPLR 4518(a), because he failed to attest that he was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of his employer or the plaintiff … . Moreover, Croft’s computations were “based upon a review of unidentified and unproduced business records” and, consequently, “constitute[d] inadmissible hearsay and lack[ed] probative value” … on that additional ground. The error in relying on Croft’s hearsay evidence was not harmless, as, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the referee’s determination is not substantially supported by any admissible evidence in the record … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Barnett, 2025 NY Slip Op 04861, Second Dept 9-10-25

Practice Point: Unless the business records relied upon in the referee’s report are produced and supported by an adequate foundation, the report is inadmissible hearsay.

 

You might also like
A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF THE CARRIER PROPERLY DISCLAIMED COVERAGE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ON THE GROUND THAT ITS INSURED’S CAR HAD BEEN STOLEN; THE UNINSURED MOTORIST CARRIER’S PETITION FOR A TEMPORARY STAY OF ARBITRATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
HOSPITAL SECURITY PERSONNEL WENT TO PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT AND ESCORTED HER TO DEFENDANT HOSPITAL (THE UNDERLYING CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT DESCRIBED); PLAINTIFF WON A “FALSE IMPRISONMENT” SUIT AND WAS AWARDED $3.5 MILLION; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S SUBJECTIVE BELIEF SHE COULD NOT LEAVE THE APARTMENT OR THE VEHICLE TRANSPORTING HER TO THE HOSPITAL WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK TO PROVE (1) STANDING TO FORECLOSE THE REVERSE MORTGAGE, (2) DEFAULT AND (3) NOTICE WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY (FIRST 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).
No Special Duty Owed by School District to Adult Employees
DEFENDANT CLAIMED HE TOOK POSSESSION OF THE VICTIM’S GUN AND FIRED AFTER THE VICTIM FIRED AT HIM; DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED OF ATTEMPTED MURDER, ATTEMPTED ASSAULT AND ASSAULT BUT CONVICTED OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON; THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON “TEMPORARY LAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON;” NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE; DEFENDANT DRIVER IS EXPECTED TO SEE WHAT SHOULD BE SEEN; WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PODIATRIC MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, REQUIREMENTS FOR A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION EXPLAINED.

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

CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE... DEFENDANT, WHO MOVED TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION,...