The accident reports were made in the regular course of business and were admissible under CPLR 4518 (a) ( see Galanek v New York City Tr. Auth., 53 AD2d 586; Bracco v MABSTOA, 117 AD2d 273, 277; Klein v Benrubi, 60 AD2d 548, 548; Bishin v New York Cent. R.R. Co., 20 AD2d 921). A business record is admissible even though the person who prepared it is available to testify to the acts or transactions recorded ( see Meiselman v Crown Hgts. Hosp., 285 NY 389, 397 [1941]; Clarke v New York City Tr. Auth., 174 AD2d 268; Napolitano v Branks, 141 AD2d 705, 706). Accordingly, the accident reports should have been admitted ( see Klein v Benrubi, 60 AD2d at 548).
Contrary to the Family Court's general statement of the applicable law, "[a] physician's office records, supported by the statutory foundations set forth in CPLR 4518 (a), are admissible in evidence as business records. However, medical reports, as opposed to day-to-day business entries of a treating physician, are not admissible as business records where they contain the doctor's opinion or expert proof ( Matter of Bronstein-Becher v Becher, 25 AD3d 796, 797 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Batts v Rutrick, 298 AD2d 417; Napolitano v Branks, 141 AD2d 705, 705-706). Moreover, a physician's office records "may be received as evidence despite the fact that a physician is available to testify as to the substance and contents of the records" ( Napolitano v Branks, 141 AD2d at 705-706; see Clarke v New York City Tr. Auth., 174 AD2d 268).
However, the report was not the testimony of an expert witness for which notice would have been required under that statute. Rather, as the defendants correctly contend, the Island Wide report was properly admitted as a business record (see CPLR 4518[a]; Crisci v. Sadler, 253 A.D.2d 447; Napolitano v. Branks, 141 A.D.2d 705). The verdict awarding damages for future lost earnings but awarding nothing for future pain and suffering is not inconsistent, in that the jury could reasonably have concluded that the injured plaintiff's condition prevented him from performing his strenuous past work as a maintenance worker, but had improved to the extent that it would no longer cause him to experience pain and suffering (see Gribbon v. Missionary Sisters of Sacred Heart, 244 A.D.2d 185; Kinsella v. Berley Realty Corp., 240 A.D.2d 374, cf. Powell v. New York City Tr. Auth., 186 A.D.2d 728).
It is this element of trustworthiness, serving in place of the safeguards ordinarily afforded by confrontation and cross-examination, which justifies admission of the writing or record without the necessity of calling all the persons who may have had a hand in preparing it". It is well-established law that a business record is admissible, although the person, such as Fire Marshal Clemens, who prepared the record, is available to testify (Meiselman v Crown Hgts. Hosp., 285 N.Y. 389, 397; Napolitano v Branks, 141 A.D.2d 705, 706).