Filed Date: 3/11/2008
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ request to admit the police report into evidence, where the plaintiffs failed to establish a proper foundation for its admission (see People v Freeland, 68 NY2d 699 [1986]; Sassone v Corhouse, 129 AD2d 924 [1987]). Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the mere fact that the report may have been a business record, as contemplated under CPLR 4518, “does not overcome any other exclusionary rule which might properly be invoked” (People v Tortorice, 142 AD2d 916, 918 [1988]; accord Bostic v State of New York, 232 AD2d 837, 839 [1996]).
The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Fisher, J.P., Ritter, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.