Shore Bridge Corp. v. State, 36 N.Y.2d 758 (1975)
Claims under public construction contracts can be proven by credible oral testimony, even in the absence of written business records subject to state audit.
Summary
Shore Bridge Corp. sued the State of New York for breach of a public construction contract. The State argued that the claimant’s case relied heavily on oral testimony and lacked sufficient written business records for audit, rendering the proof inadequate as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals held that there’s no legal requirement for claims under public construction contracts to be proven solely by written records. While relying on oral testimony carries the risk of being disbelieved, if the trier of fact (Court of Claims) finds the testimony credible, the claim can be allowed, regardless of the absence of supporting documentation. The Court emphasized that issues of credibility and weight of evidence are factual matters beyond their review.
Facts
Shore Bridge Corp. brought a claim against the State of New York related to a public construction contract. The specifics of the contract and the alleged breach are not detailed in the memorandum opinion, but the core issue revolves around the type of evidence presented by Shore Bridge Corp. to support its claim.
Procedural History
The Court of Claims heard the case and made findings of fact based on the evidence presented. The Appellate Division affirmed the Court of Claims’ decision. The State of New York appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient as a matter of law.
Issue(s)
Whether claims under public construction contracts must be proven by written business records subject to audit by the State, or whether credible oral testimony can suffice.
Holding
No, because there is no statute, rule, or decisional law requiring proof in such form.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals stated that the State’s argument for requiring written business records lacked legal basis. The court acknowledged the risks associated with relying on oral testimony, stating that a claimant “runs the substantial risk that his oral testimony may be disbelieved to a lesser or greater extent and that accordingly his claim may be disallowed in whole or in part for insufficiency of proof.” However, the Court clarified that the credibility and weight given to the oral testimony are matters for the trier of fact (the Court of Claims) to determine. If the Court of Claims finds the oral testimony credible, it can allow the claim. The Court of Appeals emphasized that it will not second-guess the factual findings of the lower courts on issues of credibility. The court also noted that arguments regarding the speculative nature of the testimony, its reliance on subjective memory, and the inability to verify it by audit, are all issues of credibility and weight of evidence, which are beyond the scope of appellate review. The court concluded that