Best Evidence Rule

Clarke v Rodriguez, 2010 NY Slip Op 03861 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

The plaintiff submitted secondary evidence of the contents of the
original contract of sale in this case, which sufficiently explained
"the unavailability of the primary evidence"
(Schozer v William Penn
Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.,
84 NY2d 639, 644; see Lipschitz v Stein, 10 AD3d 634, 637). The
plaintiff established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
defendant's former attorney, who did not testify at the trial, was in
possession of the original contract of sale (see Glatter v Borten, 233
AD2d 166, 168; Dependable Lists v Malek, 98 AD2d 679, 680;
Prince, Richardson on Evidence §§ 10-209, 10-210 [Farrell 11th ed]).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: