New York City Debt Collection Defense Attorney

Revisiting Amex v. Badalamenti: A Decade Later, Electronic Evidence Under the Microscope

Upholding Evidentiary Standards in Electronic Debt Claims

In the case of American Express Centurion Bank v. Badalamenti, the court scrutinized the evidentiary standards required for electronic records in debt collection lawsuits, leading to a nuanced decision that emphasizes the importance of detailed and authenticated evidence.

Key Points of Law:

  1. Admissibility of Electronic Records: The court highlighted the necessity for electronic records to have a proper foundation, as mandated by New York State Technology Law §§ 302 and 306, ensuring records are protected against tampering and accurately reflect the original data.

  2. Foundation for Business Records: The affidavit provided by American Express failed to demonstrate personal knowledge of the electronic record-keeping system, missing critical details on how the records were created, maintained, and protected from alteration, as required by CPLR 4518 and 4539.

  3. Proof of Damages and Liability: While the court found sufficient evidence to establish the defendant's liability, it ruled that American Express did not meet the burden of proof for damages due to inadequately authenticated electronic records. Consequently, the case was ordered to trial to determine the exact amount owed.


The American Express Centurion Bank v. Badalamenti case is a pivotal reminder of the rigorous evidentiary standards required for electronic records in legal proceedings. It underscores the court's role in ensuring that claims, especially those based on electronic evidence, are supported by thoroughly authenticated documentation. This decision protects defendants from unsubstantiated claims and guides plaintiffs on the necessity of maintaining and presenting clear, tamper-proof records. The main takeaway is the critical need for detailed evidence proving liability and damages in debt collection cases.

Case Citation: Am. Exp. Centurion Bank v. Badalamenti, 958 N.Y.S.2d 644 (Dist. Ct. 2010).

Transition to 2023-2024: The Enduring Relevance of Amex v. Badalamenti

As we navigate through 2023-2024, the principles established in the American Express Centurion Bank v. Badalamenti case continue to hold significant relevance in the legal landscape, particularly in the realm of debt collection and electronic evidence. This case's emphasis on the stringent requirements for authenticating electronic records remains a critical guidepost for both creditors and debtors in an era increasingly dominated by digital transactions and record-keeping.

Why Amex v. Badalamenti Still Matters:

  1. Digital Evolution: The digital age has only expanded since 2011, making the case's focus on electronic record authentication more pertinent than ever. As businesses and financial institutions increasingly rely on electronic systems for managing accounts and transactions, the standards set by this case ensure that such records, when used as evidence, are scrutinized for authenticity and reliability.

  2. Consumer Protection: This case underscores ongoing efforts to protect consumers from potentially unjust debt collection practices based on inadequately verified electronic evidence. It serves as a reminder that creditors must adhere to rigorous standards of proof, thereby safeguarding consumer rights against erroneous claims.

  3. Legal Precedent: Amex v. Badalamenti continues to be cited in subsequent cases, reflecting its importance as a legal precedent. It provides a clear framework for courts and litigants on the admissibility of electronic records, ensuring that the evolution of technology does not compromise the integrity of legal processes.

2011 Bog:

The lesson here is to always challenge electronic "reproductions" of any evidence, especially account statements, submitted in support of a credit issuer's lawsuit against you. In this case, the court rejected AMEX's seemingly "robosigned" affidavit in support of its summary judgment motion because it failed to state "when, how, or by whom" the electronically reproduced records were created. New York State Technology Law §§ 302 and 306 require a showing that the electronic record system permits "additions, deletions, or changes" through an audit trail. These laws also require a showing of the manner in which "tampering or degradation" of the reproduced records is prevented.

Absent an affidavit, in admissible form, from a witness with personal knowledge meeting these additional requirements involving electronically reproduced records, the purported evidence is incompetent and inadmissible. What are bank records aren't "electronic reproductions"?

(American Express Centurion Bank v. Badalamenti, NYLJ, January 10, 2011)

Collection Defense Intake Form: The Langel Firm