Appellant's Appendix - Philip D. Stern

[H]ow do you show the underlying debt with
this witness?
Plaintiff's counsel claimed the "business exceptions rule"
permitted admission of the monthly statements. The judge
disagreed, noting, "if you don't have the custodian of records
for the underlying creditor, . . . how can you prove your case?"
After inquiring whether plaintiff intended to produce any other
witnesses, the judge asked defendant if he "ha[d] an application
for dismissal?" The judge granted defendant's motion,
concluding that Sharpe "ha[d] no personal knowledge of any of
the business records of [WaMu]," was "not in a position to
testify as to the contents of those records," and "there [wa]s
no evidence . . . to establish that . . . defendant owe[d] a
debt to [WaMu]." He entered an order of judgment in defendant's
favor because "plaintiff [was] unable to prove [the] underlying
debt." This appeal followed.
Plaintiff's essential argument is that the trial judge
erred in refusing to admit the monthly credit card statements as
business records, excepted from the hearsay rule by N.J.R.E.
803(c)(6). In this regard, plaintiff contends that absent some
showing by defendant that the records were not trustworthy, the
statements were admissible.
"In reviewing a trial court's evidential ruling, an
appellate court is limited to examining the decision for abuse
5
A-2062-10T4
28a