Bruce-Bishop v. Jafar

• Decision Date: 03 February 2003
• Citation: Bruce-Bishop v. Jafar, 302 AD2d 345, 753 N.Y.S.2d 890 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
• Parties: HAZEL BRUCE-BISHOP et al., Appellants,<BR>v.<BR>JAFAR J. JAFAR, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

302 A.D.2d 345

753 N.Y.S.2d 890

HAZEL BRUCE-BISHOP et al., Appellants,

v.JAFAR J. JAFAR, Respondent.

Decided February 3, 2003.

Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Where a proper foundation is laid, a physician's office records or hospital records, including medical opinion, are admissible as evidence at trial to the extent that they are germane to diagnosis and treatment (see Williams v Alexander, 309 NY 283, 287; Wilson v Bodian, 130 AD2d 221, 231; CPLR 4518 [a]). Thus, the office records of the plaintiff's treating physicians were properly admitted into evidence.

In addition, the defendant's experts were entitled to rely on the facts set forth in those records, as they did not base their expert opinions upon the conclusions contained in the records (see O'Shea v Sarro, 106 AD2d 435, 437; Borden v Brady, 92 AD2d 983).