(a) Generally. Any writing or record, whether in the form of an entry in a book or otherwise, made as a memorandum or record of any act, transaction, occurrence or event, shall be admissible in evidence in proof of that act, transaction, occurrence or event, if the judge finds that it was made in the regular course of any business and that it was the regular course of such business to make it, at the time of the act, transaction, occurrence or event, or within a reasonable time thereafter. An electronic record, as defined in section three hundred two of the state technology law, used or stored as such a memorandum or record, shall be admissible in a tangible exhibit that is a true and accurate representation of such electronic record. The court may consider the method or manner by which the electronic record was stored, maintained or retrieved in determining whether the exhibit is a true and accurate representation of such electronic record. All other circumstances of the making of the memorandum or record, including lack of personal knowledge by the maker, may be proved to affect its weight, but they shall not affect its admissibility. The term business includes a business, profession, occupation and calling of every kind.
R 4518.Business records.
Article 45. Evidence · Last amended 2018 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceCPLR 4518 is New York's business records exception to the hearsay rule, admitting records made in the regular course of business at or near the time of the event, extending to electronic records, and setting special certification rules for hospital, DNA, and support-payment records.
Full Text of CPLR 4518
(b) Hospital bills. A hospital bill is admissible in evidence under this rule and is prima facie evidence of the facts contained, provided it bears a certification by the head of the hospital or by a responsible employee in the controller’s or accounting office that the bill is correct, that each of the items was necessarily supplied and that the amount charged is reasonable. This subdivision shall not apply to any proceeding in a surrogate’s court nor in any action instituted by or on behalf of a hospital to recover payment for accommodations or supplies furnished or for services rendered by or in such hospital, except that in a proceeding pursuant to section one hundred eighty-nine of the lien law to determine the validity and extent of the lien of a hospital, such certified hospital bills are prima facie evidence of the fact of services and of the reasonableness of any charges which do not exceed the comparable charges made by the hospital in the care of workmen’s compensation patients.
(c) Other records. All records, writings and other things referred to in sections 2306 and 2307 are admissible in evidence under this rule and are prima facie evidence of the facts contained, provided they bear a certification or authentication by the head of the hospital, laboratory, department or bureau of a municipal corporation or of the state, or by an employee delegated for that purpose or by a qualified physician. Where a hospital record is in the custody of a warehouse as that term is defined by paragraph (thirteen) of subsection (a) of section 7—102 of the uniform commercial code, pursuant to a plan approved in writing by the state commissioner of health, admissibility under this subdivision may be established by a certification made by the manager of the warehouse that sets forth (i) the authority by which the record is held, including but not limited to a court order, order of the commissioner, or order or resolution of the governing body or official of the hospital, and (ii) that the record has been in the exclusive custody of such warehouse or warehousemen since its receipt from the hospital or, if another has had access to it, the name and address of such person and the date on which and the circumstances under which such access was had. Any warehouse providing a certification as required by this subdivision shall have no liability for acts or omissions relating thereto, except for intentional misconduct, and the warehouse is authorized to assess and collect a reasonable charge for providing the certification described by this subdivision. Where a hospital record is located in a jurisdiction other than this state, admissibility under this subdivision may be established by either a certification or authentication by the head of the hospital, laboratory, department or bureau of a municipal corporation or of the state or by an employee delegated for that purpose, or by a qualified physician.
(d) Any records or reports relating to the administration and analysis of a genetic marker or DNA test, including records or reports of the costs of such tests, administered pursuant to sections four hundred eighteen and five hundred thirty-two of the family court act or section one hundred eleven-k of the social services law are admissible in evidence under this rule and are prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein provided they bear a certification or authentication by the head of the hospital, laboratory, department or bureau of a municipal corporation or the state or by an employee delegated for that purpose, or by a qualified physician. If such record or report relating to the administration and analysis of a genetic marker test or DNA test or tests administered pursuant to sections four hundred eighteen and five hundred thirty-two of the family court act or section one hundred eleven-k of the social services law indicates at least a ninety-five percent probability of paternity, the admission of such record or report shall create a rebuttable presumption of paternity, and shall, if unrebutted, establish the paternity of and liability for the support of a child pursuant to articles four and five of the family court act.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a record or report relating to the administration and analysis of a genetic marker test or DNA test certified in accordance with subdivision (d) of this rule and administered pursuant to sections four hundred eighteen and five hundred thirty-two of the family court act or section one hundred eleven-k of the social services law is admissible in evidence under this rule without the need for foundation testimony or further proof of authenticity or accuracy unless objections to the record or report are made in writing no later than twenty days before a hearing at which the record or report may be introduced into evidence or thirty days after receipt of the test results, whichever is earlier.
(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, records or reports of support payments and disbursements maintained pursuant to title six-A of article three of the social services law by the office of temporary and disability assistance or the fiscal agent under contract to the office for the provision of centralized collection and disbursement functions are admissible in evidence under this rule, provided that they bear a certification by an official of a social services district attesting to the accuracy of the content of the record or report of support payments and that in attesting to the accuracy of the record or report such official has received confirmation from the office of temporary and disability assistance or the fiscal agent under contract to the office for the provision of centralized collection and disbursement functions pursuant to section one hundred eleven-h of the social services law that the record or report of support payments reflects the processing of all support payments in the possession of the office or the fiscal agent as of a specified date, and that the document is a record or report of support payments maintained pursuant to title six-A of article three of the social services law. If so certified, such record or report shall be admitted into evidence under this rule without the need for additional foundation testimony. Such records shall be the basis for a permissive inference of the facts contained therein unless the trier of fact finds good cause not to draw such inference.
(g) Pregnancy and childbirth costs. Any hospital bills or records relating to the costs of pregnancy or birth of a child for whom proceedings to establish paternity, pursuant to sections four hundred eighteen and five hundred thirty-two of the family court act or section one hundred eleven-k of the social services law have been or are being undertaken, are admissible in evidence under this rule and are prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein, provided they bear a certification or authentication by the head of the hospital, laboratory, department or bureau of a municipal corporation or the state or by an employee designated for that purpose, or by a qualified physician.
Plain-English Summary
CPLR 4518(a) is the workhorse of New York's hearsay law. A writing or record made as a memorandum of an act, transaction, occurrence, or event is admissible to prove that act or event if the judge finds it was made in the regular course of business, and that making such a record was the regular practice of that business, at or within a reasonable time after the event. The rule trusts records generated by routine business practice over records made specially for litigation, on the theory that a business has no reason to falsify what it records just to keep its own operations running. Business is defined broadly, covering any business, profession, occupation, or calling. Gaps in how the record was made, including the fact that the person who made it lacked personal knowledge of the underlying event, go to the weight a fact-finder gives the record, not to whether it comes in at all.
The rule extends the same treatment to electronic records. An electronic record used or stored as a business memorandum is admissible in a tangible exhibit that accurately and truly represents it, and the court can weigh how the record was stored, maintained, or retrieved in deciding whether the exhibit is trustworthy. That inquiry goes only to whether the exhibit accurately represents the underlying electronic record, not to whether the information in the record is itself accurate, which remains a question of weight like any other business record.
Subdivisions (b) and (c) let hospital bills and other hospital, laboratory, or municipal and state department records come in without live witness testimony, so long as they carry the right certification, from the hospital's head, a responsible employee, or a qualified physician, though hospital bills used in the hospital's own collection actions, and records in surrogate's court, are handled differently. Where a hospital has closed, subdivision (c) lets a records warehouse holding those files certify its custody chain instead.
The remaining subdivisions cover niche but heavily litigated categories: certified genetic marker or DNA test records in paternity cases, which create a rebuttable presumption of paternity once the test shows at least a ninety-five percent probability; DNA records admissible without foundation testimony absent a timely written objection; certified records of support payments processed by the state; and hospital records tied to the costs of pregnancy or childbirth in a paternity proceeding.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the business records exception to the hearsay rule in New York?
CPLR 4518(a) makes a writing or record admissible to prove an act, transaction, occurrence, or event if the judge finds it was made in the regular course of business, and that making such records was the regular practice of that business, at or near the time of the event.
Does a business record need to be made by someone with firsthand knowledge to be admitted?
No. CPLR 4518(a) says the maker's lack of personal knowledge, and other circumstances of how the record was made, affect its weight, not its admissibility.
Are electronic business records admissible in New York courts?
Yes. CPLR 4518(a) allows an electronic record used or stored as a business memorandum to be admitted in a tangible exhibit that truly and accurately represents it.
How does a hospital bill get admitted into evidence without a witness?
CPLR 4518(b) makes a certified hospital bill prima facie evidence of the charges, provided the hospital's head or a responsible employee certifies that it is correct, that the items were necessary, and the charges reasonable.
Can a closed hospital's records still be admitted under CPLR 4518?
Yes. CPLR 4518(c) lets a records warehouse holding a closed hospital's files certify its custody and access history in place of the hospital's own certification.
Does a DNA test admitted under CPLR 4518 prove paternity automatically?
Not automatically, but close. CPLR 4518(d) creates a rebuttable presumption of paternity once a certified genetic marker or DNA test shows at least a ninety-five percent probability, and that presumption establishes paternity if unrebutted.
Do you need a witness to introduce a certified DNA paternity test at a hearing?
No. CPLR 4518(e) admits such a certified record without foundation testimony, unless a written objection is made within the statute's deadlines.
What kind of records does CPLR 4518 treat as business records?
Any writing made as a memorandum of an act, transaction, occurrence, or event in the regular course of any business, profession, occupation, or calling, a definition broad enough to include hospital, laboratory, and municipal records alongside ordinary commercial records.
Advisory Committee Notes
The Committee proposes an amendment to CPLR 4518 relating to the admissibility into evidence of computer-generated business records. The proposed amendment would add two new sentences in subdivision (a) of rule 4518, which would expressly permit the introduction into evidence of an electronic record as defined in section 102 of the State Technology Law, in any tangible format that accurately represents the content of such an electronic record.
The proposed amendment maintains the requirement that the electronic record be used or stored as a memorandum or record of a business act, transaction, occurrence or event. Further, such a record still would have to be made in the regular course of business, and, in accordance with the standard of admissibility for all business records, it also is required that it be the regular course of such business to make such a record at the time of transaction.
Thus, the amendment seeks to treat documents or other exhibits derived from electronic records in the same manner as more traditional business records. However, the amendment expands on the impact of the State Technology Law by specifically authorizing the introduction of exhibits that are derivative of the electronic record, provided that the exhibit is in a format that is an accurate and trustworthy representation of such electronic record. Under the amendment, an admissible document or other exhibit - even one prepared for litigation purposes outside the normal course of business - may be derived from an electronic record maintained in the ordinary course of business. The rule would allow proof of information contained in electronic records without the production of the electronic medium on which the electronic record is stored. Thus, for database and other kinds of electronic records, there would be no need to produce the hard drive or archival copy that may have been created in the ordinary course of business, and which may contain much extraneous or even privileged information. However, recognizing that the actual business record on the recording media used in the ordinary course of business may not be produced in court, the court may consider the method or manner by which the electronic record was stored, maintained or retrieved, in determining that the proposed exhibit is trustworthy and accurate solely with respect to its representing the actual business record. It specifically is not intended by this language that there be an inquiry into the trustworthiness or accuracy of the underlying information stored in the electronic record, beyond that which would occur with any traditional business record produced in court. The same objections which previously could have been made to a traditional paper business record would apply to an electronic record. No new objections are created. The language is intended only to address whether the information contained in the electronic business record is fairly represented on the exhibit, and no more. As is the case with other business records “all other circumstances of the making of the memorandum or record, including the lack of personal knowledge of the maker, may be proved to affect its weight but shall not prohibit admissibility.” The proposed bill will allow introduction into evidence in paper or other tangible form computer business records, which, though kept in the ordinary course of business, may never have been maintained as a paper or other tangible document. The Committee modification has previously proposed amendments to CPLR 4518 to achieve this purpose, but the modification to this proposal includes specific reference to the electronic record as defined in the State Technology Law. Presently, while the State Technology Law provides for the admissibility of electronic records, that law does not provide for the admissibility of accurate derivative documents.
CPLR 4539, which deals with reproductions, such as carbon copies of photocopies, is not an adequate vehicle for providing for the introduction of exhibits derived from electronic records. This is because CPLR 4539 requires that the reproduction itself have been created in the ordinary course of business. It is anticipated that reliable recompilations of electronic records often would not have been created in the ordinary course of business. CPLR 4539(b), in dealing with reproductions through processes which store an image, and which processes do not permit alterations, deletions or changes without leaving a record of such additions, does not generally address database records and could impose technical impediments to admissibility based on difficulty and proof of the protections against undetectable alteration. The 1996 legislation that added subdivision (b) ensures that an electronic image of a document may be introduced into evidence in the same manner as the original document and allows for paper intensive industries to safely dispose of the original hardcopy and archive only optically-scanned images. However, the 1996 legislation does not deal with technologies that record information other than through an image, and also such legislation could have the unintended effect of restricting the admissibility of electronic records not stored with the technology described in the legislation.
The Committee believes that this proposal would codify current practice in the courts, expand the impact and usability of electronic records within the meaning of the State Technology Law, and provide a clear standard for admissibility of information stored in business computer systems in the State.
1992 Recommendations of Advisory Committee on Civil Practice:
The Committee’s attention has been called to a gap in the coverage of CPLR 4518(c), which provides for the certification or authentication of, among other things, records of patient care maintained by a hospital. In conjunction with CPLR 2306, the statute provides that, in response to a subpoena duces tecum, copies of patient records may be produced and are prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein if certified by the head of the hospital, laboratory, or an employee delegated by a qualified physician.
The gap in coverage arises when a hospital is closed and there is no head of hospital or other person who may certify the records pursuant to CPLR 4518(c). Typically, the hospital’s records are held by a warehouse or records archive company which is in the business of storing records.
Numerous hospitals in New York State have closed in the recent past, and as financial pressures intensify, it is clear that others also will close, particularly small hospitals. New York State Health Department Regulations 10 NYCRR 401.4(i) provide for retention of records of a hospital which is closing, pursuant to a written plan approved by the State Commissioner of Health, but such written plans do not and cannot address the evidentiary problem of authenticating such records in a judicial proceeding.
The Committee proposes to fill the gap by permitting a person who is in the business of maintaining records to certify as to his authority to hold them, and to who has had access to them.
Because the warehouseman cannot certify that the record received from the hospital is, in fact, the complete hospital record, the warehouseman should be permitted to give a certificate as to the facts he ordinarily would know, making the records admissible, with the issues of their completeness and weight to be left to the judgment of the trier of facts.
This rule is the same as former § 374-a with minor language changes; the title has been changed from “admissibility of certain written records.” In view of the breadth of this provision, § 373, which made books of foreign corporations “presumptive” evidence, is not required. Similarly, § 374, which provided for the use of copies of books of foreign corporations, is not required. Copies of the papers may be obtained under CPLR § 3120 and admissions of their accuracy procured through use of § 3123. In the absence of an admission and an inability to obtain the original records by subpoena, copies could be introduced as secondary evidence without reliance upon former § 374. See People v Burgess (1927) 244 NY 472, 479, 155 NE 745, 748.
Former § 340, which covered admissions by a “member of an aggregate corporation,” is not necessary. The general rule on admissions by corporate agents covers the matter. Compare § 3117(a)(2).
The term “prima facie” has been substituted for “presumptive” throughout this article for reasons of consistency without intending any change in meaning. As used, the term means a presumption which shifts the burden of coming forward and not the burden of persuasion. It is rebutted when evidence contrary to the presumed fact sufficient to support a finding of its negative has been introduced.
Amendment History
Add, L 1962, ch 308, eff Sept 1, 1963; amd, L 1982, ch 695, § 3; L 1983, ch 311, § 1; L 1984, ch 792, § 3; L 1992, ch 381, § 1; L 1994, ch 170, § 350, eff June 15, 1994; L 1995, ch 81, § 236, eff July 1, 1995; L 1997, ch 398, §§ 87-89, eff Nov 11, 1997; L 2002, ch 136, § 1, eff July 23, 2002; L 2005, ch 741, § 1, eff Oct 18, 2005; L 2007, ch 601, § 10, eff Aug 15, 2007; L 2017, ch 229, § 1, effective August 21, 2017; L 2018, ch 237, § 5, effective August 24, 2018.
Source & verification. Provision text, History, and Advisory
Committee Notes are reproduced verbatim from the Consolidated Laws of New York.
Last verified July 21, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: business records exception New York hearsayNew York business records rule evidencehospital records evidence CPLRelectronic business records admissible New YorkDNA test paternity presumption CPLR 4518certified business record hearsay exceptionCPLR business records rule