(a) If any business, institution, or member of a profession or calling, in the regular course of business or activity has made, kept or recorded any writing, entry, print or representation and in the regular course of business has recorded, copied, or reproduced it by any process, including reproduction, which accurately reproduces or forms a durable medium for reproducing the original, such reproduction, when satisfactorily identified, is as admissible in evidence as the original, whether the original is in existence or not, and an enlargement or facsimile of such reproduction is admissible in evidence if the original reproduction is in existence and available for inspection under direction of the court. The introduction of a reproduction does not preclude admission of the original.
R 4539.Reproductions of original
Article 45. Evidence · Last amended 1996 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceCPLR 4539 lets accurately reproduced business records - microfilm, photocopies, or authenticated digital images that reveal any later tampering - stand in for the original document at trial, even when the original no longer exists.
Full Text of CPLR 4539
(b) A reproduction created by any process which stores an image of any writing, entry, print or representation and which does not permit additions, deletions, or changes without leaving a record of such additions, deletions, or changes, when authenticated by competent testimony or affidavit which shall include the manner or method by which tampering or degradation of the reproduction is prevented, shall be as admissible in evidence as the original.
Plain-English Summary
Businesses rarely keep every original document forever. CPLR 4539 recognizes that reality and lets a reliable reproduction of a business record carry the same evidentiary weight as the original, whether the original still exists or was discarded long ago. Subdivision (a) covers the traditional case: a business, institution, or professional that reproduces a record in the regular course of its activity, by microfilm, photocopy, or another process that accurately captures the original, can offer that reproduction in evidence once it is properly identified. Offering the reproduction does not stop a party from also introducing the original if it happens to survive.
Subdivision (b), added as record-keeping moved to digital storage, addresses electronic images. A reproduction created by a process that blocks silent edits, one that leaves a record of any addition, deletion, or change, is admissible as the original once authenticated by testimony or affidavit describing how the system prevents undetected tampering or degradation. That authentication requirement is the tradeoff for admitting a copy in place of the real thing: the party offering it has to show the copying process itself is trustworthy.
This rule shows up constantly in commercial litigation, insurance disputes, and any case built on business records that were scanned, imaged, or otherwise reproduced long before the lawsuit began.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a scanned copy of a business record be used instead of the original in a New York trial?
Yes, if the reproduction was made in the regular course of business by a process that accurately reproduces the original and is properly identified, or if it meets the electronic-imaging authentication standard in subdivision (b).
What has to be shown to admit an electronic image of a record?
The party offering it must authenticate it through testimony or an affidavit describing the method that prevents undetected tampering or degradation of the image.
Does introducing a reproduction stop a party from later producing the original?
No. CPLR 4539(a) makes clear that offering a reproduction does not preclude admission of the original if it exists and is available.
What if the original document has been destroyed?
The reproduction is admissible as the original regardless of whether the original still exists, as long as the other requirements of the rule are met.
Does CPLR 4539 apply to enlargements of a microfilm reproduction?
Yes, an enlargement or facsimile of the reproduction is admissible if the original reproduction still exists and is available for inspection under the court's direction.
Advisory Committee Notes
This rule is the same as CPA § 374-b, except that unnecessary language has been omitted. In addition the word “made” has been added before “kept” to meet the request of the New York Clearing House Association. The Committee on State Legislation of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York gives the following description and reason for the change:
Due to the words “held in custodial or fiduciary capacity,” trust departments of banks fear that if trust department records are destroyed after microfilming, the reproduction will not be accepted as evidence. Apparently the quoted exclusionary words were added from the floor to the original draft of the Uniform Act at a meeting of the Commissioners on Uniform State Law. The New York Clearing House Association reports that the Commissioners apparently accepted the amendment under the misapprehension that records maintained by a bank in a fiduciary or custodial capacity are the property of its customers. The Clearing House Association states that this is in fact almost never the case, and that in any event the statute related to records kept in the regular course of business, which would not cover documents held for the account of the customer.
Trust departments of banks are burdened, as are all similar institutions, by a vast accumulated mass of records. There seems no good reason why they should not microfilm and destroy such records as debit and credit tickets to a trust and custody account, brokers slips, checks, statements, etc., without the fear that they will be excluded from the benefits of § 374-b. [Bulletin No. 8, 504 (1957).].
The phrase, “the original may be destroyed in the regular course of business unless held in a custodial or fiduciary capacity or unless its preservation is required by law,” in the former section has been omitted as unnecessary. See Cal Code Civ Proc § 1953i; Uniform Rules of Evidence, Rule 72. The phrase appeared to authorize destruction of records. It was inappropriate in rules of evidence and, indeed, accomplished no purpose. It was evident that a business might destroy its records unless private obligations or public statutes forbad it to do so. Insofar as the phrase implied that the reproduction might not have been used unless the original had been destroyed, it was misleading. The statute was designed to permit a photostat or other facsimile to be used even if the original was in existence. This was indicated by the next to the last sentence in the former section. Should the custodian destroy an individual record not following its usual course of business in doing so, the matter can be handled by using general rules on spoliation. Accordingly, the phrase found in the uniform statute “whether the original is in existence or not,” omitted when the act was adopted in New York, has been reinserted. New York, of the more than thirty adopting it, is apparently the only state which omitted this language. See 9 Uniform Laws Ann 291–92 (Supp 1956).
Amendment History
Formerly § 4539, add, L 1962, ch 308; amd, L 1962, ch 315, § 1, eff Sept 1, 1963; L 1996, ch 27, § 1, eff Nov 1, 1996.
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 record reproduction evidence New Yorkadmitting a copy of a document at trialmicrofilm record evidence CPLRelectronic record authentication New York courtscanned document admissible evidence NY