Zinovy Brodsky - Page 116




                                       - 57 -                                         
                    notice, by the pleadings or otherwise, that the                   
                    contents would be a subject of proof at the hear-                 
                    ing, and that party does not produce the original                 
                    at the hearing; * * *                                             
          The advisory committee’s notes accompanying FRE 1004 explain the            
          purpose of the exception to FRE 1002 found in FRE 1004(3), as               
          follows:                                                                    
                    Basically, the rule requiring the production of                   
               the original as proof of contents has developed as a                   
               rule of preference: if failure to produce the original                 
               is satisfactorily explained, secondary evidence is                     
               admissible.  The instant rule specifies the circum-                    
               stances under which production of the original is                      
               excused.                                                               
               It is petitioner’s position that respondent was in control             
          of the “originals” of the documents, i.e, 25 checks and 1 money             
          order,15 which certain of respondent’s employees reviewed in                
          preparing the material entries that are the subject of respon-              
          dent’s evidentiary objections and which listed the names of the             
          payors during the years at issue of certain items that were                 
          deposited into petitioner’s accounts.  According to petitioner,             
          because respondent was in control of those “originals”, FRE                 
          1004(3) permits the use of other evidence, i.e., certain entries            
          in respondent’s workpapers, to prove the identity of those                  
          payors.  We disagree.                                                       
               The “originals” of the documents that identify the payors              
          during the years at issue of the items that relate to the mate-             

               15All but one of the items in question that were deposited             
          into petitioner’s accounts and that relate to the material                  
          entries that are the subject of respondent’s evidentiary objec-             
          tion were checks of some type, and one of those items was a money           
          order.                                                                      





Page:  Previous  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011