Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Marlin, 2019 NY Slip Op 00095 [2d Dept. 2019]
When a party relies upon the business records exception to the hearsay rule in attempting to establish its prima facie case, “[a] proper foundation for the admission of a business record must be provided by someone with personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures” (Citibank, N.A. v Cabrera, 130 AD3d 861, 861; see CPLR 3408[a]).
In support of those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants and for an order of reference, Fannie Mae submitted affidavits of foreclosure specialists employed by Seterus, Inc., its loan servicer. The foreclosure specialists attested that they were personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of Seterus, Inc., but failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of records concerning the defendants’ payment history and default. Accordingly, Fannie Mae failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon in the affidavits were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]; HSBC Mtge. Servs., Inc. v Royal, 142 AD3d 952, 954; US Bank NA v Handler, 140 AD3d 948, 949). Since Fannie Mae’s motion was based on evidence that was not in admissible form (see HSBC Mtge. Servs., Inc. v Royal, 142 AD3d at 954), Fannie Mae failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants and for an order of reference should have been denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the defendants’ papers in opposition (see id., citing Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).
We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to grant that branch of Fannie Mae’s motion which was to strike the defendants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims. To the extent that those portions of the answer relate to Residential’s alleged lack of standing, they were properly stricken, and the defendants make no arguments on appeal regarding the remaining affirmative defenses and counterclaims.
The bold is mine.
Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v B&F Land Dev. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 00292 [2d Dept. 2019]
The best evidence rule requires the production of an original writing where its contents are in dispute and are sought to be proven (see Schozer v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 84 NY2d 639, 643; Stathis v Estate of Karas, 130 AD3d 1008, 1009; Kliamovich v Kliamovich, 85 AD3d 867, 869). Under an exception to the 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” (Schozer v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 84 NY2d at 643 [citations omitted]). The proponent of the secondary evidence “has the heavy burden of establishing, preliminarily to the court’s satisfaction, that it is a reliable and accurate portrayal of the original” (id. at 645).
Here, PLM failed to offer any explanation as to the unavailability of the primary evidence, i.e., the original policy. PLM also did not establish that the copy of the policy proffered at trial was a “reliable and accurate portrayal of the original” (id.). In that regard, during voir dire examination, Santoro acknowledged that he had compiled the copy of the policy proffered by PLM at trial based upon information contained in the underwriting file, and he could not explain the language discrepancy between that copy of the policy and the copy of the policy produced by PLM during discovery. Consequently, the Supreme Court should not have admitted into evidence the copy of the policy proffered by PLM at trial. The error was not harmless since, without the original policy or an accurate replication, PLM could not establish what locations were covered by the policy, what exclusions to coverage, if any, existed under the terms of the policy, or the insured’s responsibilities with respect to providing notice of the claim to PLM (see Stathis v Estate of Karas, 130 AD3d at 1011).
The bold is mine.