Police Accident Reports and CPLR 4518(a): When They Come Into Evidence — and When They Get Redacted

Key Takeaways

• A police accident report is admissible as a business record under CPLR 4518(a) only to the extent it reflects the officer’s personal observations made while carrying out police duties.
• Information supplied by witnesses who are not part of the police business is inadmissible unless it fits another hearsay exception — and courts will redact it.
• In Shehab v Powers, the Second Department upheld redaction of the accident location because nothing showed the responding officer (who did not witness the crash) observed it personally.
• The plaintiff also could not cross-examine his own witness — the responding officer — about the accident location.

Shehab v Powers, 2017 NY Slip Op 03790 (2d Dept. 2017)

The police report many times is a vital piece of information in PI cases. The rules regarding their admissibility become a hot bed of issues — and Shehab is a clean statement of where the line sits.

The Decision

“Information in a police accident report is “admissible as a business record so long as the report is made based upon the officer’s personal observations and while carrying out police duties” (Memenza v Cole, 131 AD3d 1020, 1021; see Matter of Chu Man Woo v Qiong Yun Xi, 106 [*2]AD3d 818, 819; Yeargans v Yeargans, 24 AD2d 280, 282). Conversely, information in a police accident report is inadmissible where the information came from witnesses not engaged in the police business in the course of which the memorandum was made, and the information does not qualify under any other hearsay exception (see Matter of Chu Man Woo v Qiong Yun Xi, 106 AD3d at 819; Holliday v Hudson Armored Car & Courier Serv., 301 AD2d 392, 396).

Here, the Supreme Court did not err in redacting certain information from the police report with respect to the location of the accident. There was insufficient evidence at trial to demonstrate that the disputed information was derived from the personal observations of the responding police officer, who did not witness the subject accident (see Wynn v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 137 AD3d 779, 780; Memenza v Cole, 131 AD3d at 1022; Noakees v Rosa, 54 AD3d 317, 318; Gagliano v Vaccaro, 97 AD2d 430). Moreover, the court did not err in precluding the plaintiff from cross-examining his own witness, the responding police officer, with respect to the accident location”

The Business Records Framework

CPLR 4518(a) is New York’s business records exception to the hearsay rule. A record comes in if it was made in the regular course of business, it was the regular course of that business to make the record, and it was made at or about the time of the event recorded. A police accident report — typically the MV-104A — easily satisfies those elements as to its creation: officers prepare accident reports routinely, contemporaneously, and as part of their duties.

But satisfying 4518(a) only gets the document through the door. Each statement inside the document must independently survive hearsay analysis. That is the “double hearsay” problem that decides most police-report fights.

The Double-Hearsay Problem

Think of the report as two categories of content:

1. The officer’s own observations. Skid marks measured, vehicle damage seen, road and weather conditions, the position of the cars on arrival. These are admissible — the officer was under a business duty to observe and record them.

2. What other people told the officer. A driver’s account of how the crash happened, a bystander’s description of where impact occurred. The declarants were not “engaged in the police business,” so their statements do not ride in on the business records exception. They are admissible only if they satisfy another hearsay exception — most commonly, a party admission (a defendant driver’s statement against interest at the scene is the classic example).

In Shehab, the disputed accident-location information failed both routes. The responding officer did not witness the accident, and there was insufficient evidence at trial that the location entry came from his personal observations. The trial court redacted it, and the Second Department affirmed.

Why This Matters in Car Accident Litigation

In a car accident case, the police report is often the only contemporaneous, neutral document — and juries instinctively trust it. Whether the location, the diagram, or a coded contributing factor comes into evidence can swing liability, especially in disputed-intersection and lane-change cases.

The same analysis matters at the summary judgment stage, where parties routinely attach uncertified reports stuffed with driver statements. An admissibility objection grounded in Memenza and Shehab can strip a motion of its only proof of fault. And because police reports also surface in serious injury threshold litigation under Insurance Law § 5102(d), the redaction rules echo through damages practice too. Note that New York’s May 2026 tort reform (S9008-C/A10008-C, Part EE) reshaped the Article 51 threshold landscape — eliminating the 90/180-day category and adding a greater-than-50% fault bar for cases commenced on or after the effective date — which makes admissible proof of fault at the scene more consequential than ever; see our 2026 tort reform analysis.

Shehab’s second holding deserves attention as well: a party generally may not cross-examine its own witness. If you call the responding officer, you are largely stuck with the direct testimony you elicit — another reason to know before trial exactly what the officer personally observed.

Practice Pointers

• Depose the officer on sources. Pin down, line by line, which report entries reflect personal observation and which repeat what someone said. That record controls the redaction fight.
• Hunt for a second exception. A defendant driver’s statement in the report is usually admissible as a party admission — identify the declarant and lay that foundation.
• Move in limine. Redaction battles are better fought before openings than mid-trial in front of the jury.
• Don’t lean on the report at summary judgment. Pair it with an affidavit from a witness with personal knowledge so the motion survives an admissibility attack.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a police report admissible in a New York car accident trial?

Partially. Under CPLR 4518(a), the report comes in as a business record only as to the responding officer’s personal observations made in the course of police duties. Statements from drivers or bystanders inside the report are hearsay unless they fit a separate exception.

Can a driver’s statement in a police report be used in court?

Often yes — against that driver. A party’s own statement recorded in the report is generally admissible as an admission. Statements from non-party witnesses, by contrast, are usually redacted.

What if the officer did not see the accident happen?

Then entries describing how or where the accident occurred are typically inadmissible unless the proponent shows they rest on the officer’s personal observations (for example, physical evidence at the scene) or another hearsay exception. That was precisely the redaction upheld in Shehab v Powers.

Related Resources

• Pre-existing injuries in New York personal injury cases — the firm’s cluster hub on injury-proof issues
• The Court offers some guidance as to the business records exception
• The destruction of peer hearsay: It is not hearsay – and much more
• A Wagman/Bradshaw foundation is necessary for EMG/NCV results
• 5102(d) – What NOT to Do: Critical Mistakes That Can Destroy Your Personal Injury Case
• Browse the firm’s Legal Encyclopedia for more evidence law topics
• Personal Injury practice page