| Afridi v Glen Oaks Vil. Owners, Inc. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02085 [49 AD3d 571] |
| March 11, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Alisha K. Afridi et al., Appellants, v Glen Oaks VillageOwners, Inc., Respondent. |
—[*1] Martin Clearwater & Bell LLP, New York, N.Y. (John L. A. Lyddane and Ellen B. Fishmanof counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.), entered July 11, 2006, which,upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against them dismissing the complaint.Justice Ritter has been substituted for former Justice Krausman (22 NYCRR 670.1 [c]).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The infant plaintiff sustained second degree burns to her thighs and abdomen after cominginto contact with hot water from a faucet in the bathroom of her family's apartment. The plaintiffscommenced this action against the cooperative corporation that owned the apartment where thefamily resided, alleging negligence in the supply of excessively hot water to the apartment. At theensuing jury trial, the Supreme Court excluded from evidence a section of a police reportindicating that, 12 days after the accident, the hot water from the subject faucet registered atemperature of 160 degrees Fahrenheit. The report failed to supply any details, inter alia, abouthow the temperature measurement was made.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' request toadmit the police report into evidence, where the plaintiffs failed to establish a proper foundationfor its admission (see People v Freeland, 68 NY2d 699 [1986]; Sassone v Corhouse,129 AD2d 924 [1987]). Contrary [*2]to the plaintiffs'contention, the mere fact that the report may have been a business record, as contemplated underCPLR 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 andBalkin, JJ., concur.