Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Clancy
Decision Date | 08 May 2014 |
Citation | 985 N.Y.S.2d 507,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 03331,117 A.D.3d 472 |
Parties | JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Dermott W. CLANCY, etc., et al., Defendants–Appellants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Law Office of Michael G. Dowd, New York (Niall MacGiollabhui of counsel), for appellants.
Helfand & Helfand, New York (Michael A. D'Emidio of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered November 8, 2012, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion denied.
Plaintiff's motion was based on two sets of exhibits, one attached to plaintiff's complaint, and the other to an affidavit of plaintiff's employee. The exhibits would be in admissible form only if plaintiff satisfied the requirements for their admission as business records under CPLR 4518(a). Plaintiff failed to satisfy those requirements. Although a verified pleading may be used anytime an affidavit is called for ( seeCPLR 105[u] ), here the complaint was verified only by counsel, rather than a person with knowledge. Thus, it was insufficient to establish that the attached documents were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule ( see A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Corp., 5 Misc.3d 214, 215, 783 N.Y.S.2d 244 [Civ.Ct., Kings County 2004] [attorney's affirmation was insufficient to establish that a report was an admissible business record] ). The exhibits to the employee's affidavit were also inadmissible, because the affiant failed to state in words or substance that it was the regular business of the plaintiff to create such records ( see People v. Kennedy, 68 N.Y.2d 569, 579, 510 N.Y.S.2d 853, 503 N.E.2d 501 [1986] ). Furthermore, the critical document relied upon by plaintiff to establish nonpayment is not self-explanatory and does not contain the date referenced in the employee's affidavit.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Capital One Bank (USA) v. Koralik
...to satisfy plaintiff's burden, even though plaintiff, as the moving party, has the burden of proof. See JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Clancy, 117 A.D.3d 472, 985 N.Y.S.2d 507 (1st Dept.2014) (reversed the granting of summary judgment as plaintiff failed to establish exhibits attached to employee'......
-
Public Adm'r v. Levine
...has merit because the complaint is verified “only by counsel, rather than a person with knowledge” (JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Clancy, 117 A.D.3d 472, 472, 985 N.Y.S.2d 507 [1st Dept.2014] ; see also Beltre v. Babu, 32 A.D.3d 722, 723, 821 N.Y.S.2d 69 [1st Dept.2006] [noting that “a compl......
-
Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v. Country-Wide Ins. Co.
...of the business records exception to the rule against hearsay under CPLR 4518 (see e.g. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Clancy, 117 A.D.3d 472, 472, 985 N.Y.S.2d 507 [1st Dept.2014] ; Education Plus, Inc. v. Glasser, 112 A.D.3d 1125, 1125–1126, 976 N.Y.S.2d 706 [3d Dept.2013] ; Melendez v. 176......
-
L&o Plumbing Supply Inc. v. Flow Plumbing & Heating Inc.
...reply is devoid of any showing of compliance with the business records exception (see CPLR 4518; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Clancy, 117 A.D.3d 472, 985 N.Y.S.2d 507 [1st Dept...
-
17.2 B. Medical Office Records
...delegated for that purpose so as to dispense with the need for an authenticating witness”); see also JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v. Clancy, 117 A.D.3d 472, 985 N.Y.S.2d 507 (1st Dep’t 2014).[411] . Faust v. McPherson, 4 Misc. 3d 89, 783 N.Y.S.2d 197 (App. Term 2d & 11th Jud. Dist. 2004) (subwa......