BRAND MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC. v. INFINITY INS. CO., 2016 NY Slip Op 50739(U)
At trial, Defendant unsuccessfully attempted to have the insurance policy’s declaration page, admitted into evidence.
Although the trial Court did not allow it due to Defendant’s failure to lay a proper foundation, the Appellate Term disagreed and reversed. The Appellate Terrm stated as follows:
Upon a review of the record, we find that the Civil Court erred in excluding the insurance policy declaration page from evidence. Defendant was not required to lay a CPLR 4518(a) foundation for the declaration page, since a declaration page is not hearsay, but rather, as part of an insurance contract, it “has independent legal significance and need only be authenticated to be admissible” (All Borough Group Med. Supply, Inc. v. GEICO Ins. Co., 43 Misc.3d 27, 28–29 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014], citing Kepner–Tregoe, Inc. v. Leadership Software, Inc., 12 F3d 527, 540 [5th Cir1994] and Beal–Medea Prods., Inc. v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 36 Misc.3d 135[A], 2012 N.Y. Slip Op 51347[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012] ). Here, the testimony of defendant’s senior no-fault representative sufficiently identified the document as an accurate representation of the declaration page which defendant maintained electronically (see CPLR 4539[a]; Kaliontzakis v. Papadakos, 69 AD3d 803 [2010] ). Furthermore, in describing defendant’s procedure for generating a declaration page, defendant’s witness satisfactorily set forth the “manner or method in which tampering or degradation of the reproduction is prevented” (CPLR 4539[b] ). Consequently, in view of the Civil Court’s improper exclusion of the declaration page, a new trial is warranted. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.