Opinion
June 17, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hyman, J.).
Order and judgment affirmed, with costs.
We find that the police accident report was properly received into evidence under the business record exception to the hearsay rule ( see, CPLR 4518 [a]; Zaulich v. Thompkins Sq. Holding Co., 10 A.D.2d 492; Toll v. State of New York, 32 A.D.2d 47). Moreover, appellant's statement in this report, describing how the accident occurred, was available for use by the petitioner as evidence-in-chief in establishing that there had been no contact between appellant's vehicle and a "hit-and-run" vehicle, since the statement qualified as an admission ( see, Penn v. Kirsh, 40 A.D.2d 814; Flynn v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 94 A.D.2d 617, affd 61 N.Y.2d 769; Shea v. Johnson, 101 A.D.2d 1018). Special Term's finding that there had been no contact between the vehicles was therefore amply supported by the evidence presented ( see, Matter of State Farm Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 106 A.D.2d 508).
Lastly, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's application for a continuance of the hearing ( see, Bilyou v. State of New York, 33 A.D.2d 604; Spodek v. Lasser Stables, 89 A.D.2d 892). Appellant risked the possibility that he would be unavailable to testify by leaving the jurisdiction for a prolonged period of time when he knew or should have known that his case would be called for a hearing. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.