Afridi v. Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Afridi v. Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc.

49 A.D.3d 571, 854 N.Y.2d 446

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 11, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 571 (Afridi v. Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Afridi v. Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc., 49 A.D.3d 571, 854 N.Y.2d 446 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[572]*572The infant plaintiff sustained second degree burns to her thighs and abdomen after coming into contact with hot water from a faucet in the bathroom of her family’s apartment. The plaintiffs commenced this action against the cooperative corporation that owned the apartment where the family resided, alleging negligence in the supply of excessively hot water to the apartment. At the ensuing jury trial, the Supreme Court excluded from evidence a section of a police report indicating that, 12 days after the accident, the hot water from the subject faucet registered a temperature of 160 degrees Fahrenheit. The report failed to supply any details, inter alia, about how the temperature measurement was made.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[572]*572The infant plaintiff sustained second degree burns to her thighs and abdomen after coming into contact with hot water from a faucet in the bathroom of her family’s apartment. The plaintiffs commenced this action against the cooperative corporation that owned the apartment where the family resided, alleging negligence in the supply of excessively hot water to the apartment. At the ensuing jury trial, the Supreme Court excluded from evidence a section of a police report indicating that, 12 days after the accident, the hot water from the subject faucet registered a temperature of 160 degrees Fahrenheit. The report failed to supply any details, inter alia, about how the temperature measurement was made.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 571, 854 N.Y.2d 446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/afridi-v-glen-oaks-village-owners-inc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack