Senate Bill S6335

                                
 
BILL NUMBER: S6335

SPONSOR: HOYLMAN
 
TITLE OF BILL:  An act to amend the civil practice law and rules, in
relation to admissibility of an opposing party's statement

This is one in a series of measures being introduced at the request of
the Chief Administrative Judge upon the recommendation of his Advisory
Committee on Civil Practice.

This measure would relax the common law exclusion of the hearsay state-
ment of a party's agent or employee, provided that the statement was on
a matter within the scope of that employment or agency relationship, and
made during the existence of the relationship. The measure would add a
new CPLR 4551, and provide that New York's hearsay exception shall
follow the approach of Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) (D).

The measure is intended to change the extent of authority that a propo-
nent must show in order to make the hearsay statement of an opposing
party's agent or employee admissible. While under current law it appears
clear that a hearsay statement will be admissible if there was actual
authority to speak on behalf of the party, such authority often may be
shown only by implication in light of the circumstances of the employ-
              

ment or agency relationship. In practice, this tends to limit "speaking
authority" to only the high levels of management.

Professor Michael J. Hutter has analyzed several Appellate Division
cases that take a very strict view of the predicate proof for speaking
authority, and these cases indicate that an employee or agent who is not
in charge of the business will have no implied authority to speak on
behalf of the employer -- even if the statement made relates to an
activity the person was charged to undertake. Instead, the proponent of
the hearsay statement may need to make the difficult showing of express
authority to speak on behalf of the employer. See Boyce v GumleyHaft,
Inc., 82 AD3d 491  
1ST DEPT 2011; Scherer v Golub Corp., 101 AD3d 1286
 
3D DEPT 2012; Huffer, "Speaking Agent Hearsay Exception: Time to Clar-
ify, if Not Abandon," New York Law Journal, June 6, 2013, Pg. 3, col. 1,
Vol. 249, No. 108.

We believe a strict requirement to demonstrate such authority to speak
may exclude reliable proof of an event, even though the employer as a
party might not be treated unfairly by admissibility, either because the
statement is true and made by a person with relevant knowledge, or
because the employer is able to introduce other proof in opposition to
the implications of the hearsay statement. As noted above, the current
strict requirement to show speaking authority is contrary to the Federal
Rules of Evidence. See Barker and Alexander, Evidence in New York State
and Federal Courts (2d ed.) 8:26, p. 148.

We further believe that the rule is unlikely to change without legisla-
tive action. (See, Loschiavo v Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 58
NY2d 1040, 1041  
1983 
"WE DECLINE PLAINTIFFS INVITATION TO CHANGE THIS
WELL-SETTLED, ALBEIT WIDELY CRITICIZED RULE OF EVIDENCE BUT NOTE, IN
THIS CONNECTION, THAT A PROPOSAL FOR MODIFICATION OF THE HEARSAY RULE IN
THIS STATE IS NOW BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE").

An example of statements excluded under the current rule include an
employee-driver's admissions of negligence, unless the driver was
authorized by the employer to speak about the subject accident. In
Schner v Simpson, (286 AD 716, 718  
1ST DEPT 1955), an employee' s
statement "I am sorry that I knocked you down, but I think you will be
able to get up" was held inadmissible on the ground that " 
Generally
speaking, employment does not carry authority to make either declara-
tions or admissions."(See, also, Jankowski v Borden's Condensed Milk
Co., 176 AD 453  
2D DEPT 1917  
DRIVER'S STATEMENT THAT IT WAS HIS FAULT
HELD NOT ADMISSIBLE; and Raczes v Horne, 68 AD3d 1521, 1522-1523  
3D
DEPT 2009 
MAINTENANCE WORKER'S STATEMENT:  "THIS IS THE THIRD TIME THAT
I FIXED THIS RAILING AND I'M GETTING SICK OF IT," NOT COMPETENT TO
ESTABLISH NOTICE ON THE PART OF EMPLOYER).

However, such employee statements generally are admissible in Federal
court and would be admissible under the rule proposed in this measure.
(See Corley v Burger King Corp., 56 F3d 709, 710  
5TH CIR 1995; Martin
v Savage Truck Line, 121 F Supp 417, 419  
DDC 1954).  On the other
hand, an employee's statement would not be admissible against the
employer where it concerned a matter not within the employee's scope of
employment. (See, e.g., Wilkinson v Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 920 F2d
1560  
11TH CIR 1991; Hill v Spiegel, Inc., 708 F2d 233, 237  
6TH CIR
1983).

We believe that the Federal approach is an improvement over the current
state of New York decisional law, and that trial judges will exercise
appropriate discretion to exclude such hearsay evidence when there is an
inadequate foundation or indicia of reliability.

This measure, which would have no fiscal impact, would take effect imme-
diately and apply to all actions pending on or after such effective
date.

 
2017-2018 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

S4868-A (Bonacic)  
2017-COMMITTED TO RULES;2018-COMMITTED TO RULES
A5919-A (Weinstein)  
2017-PASSED
A9009-A (Dinowitz)  
2018-AMENDED ON 3"I RDG 9009A)
 
2015-2016 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

S7312 (BONACIC)  
2016-COMMITTED TO RULES
A7320 (WEINSTEIN)  
2015-PASSED; 2016-REFERRED TO JUDICIARY