Opinion
April 4, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that defendants are awarded one bill of costs.
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised an appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
We agree with the Supreme Court that the jury verdict in favor of the defendants is not against the weight of the credible evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 A.D.2d 129). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, we find that Detective Densing's disputed testimony given on cross-examination was not improper expert testimony. Instead, we find that Detective Densing was qualified to render his opinion based on his 21 years of training and experience (see, Hanna v State of New York, 152 A.D.2d 881; Matter of Fasano v State of New York, 113 A.D.2d 885). Moreover, his opinion testimony was proper because it was elicited in response to issues raised on direct examination (see, Richardson, Evidence § 490 [Prince 10th ed]).
We also find that the police report containing Detective Densing's conclusion that the defendants' vehicle did not strike the plaintiff was properly admitted because it was based on "postincident expert analysis of observable physical evidence" which Detective Densing was qualified to render (cf., Conners v Duck's Cesspool Serv., 144 A.D.2d 329).
We have reviewed the plaintiff's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Lawrence, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.