Opinion
June 16, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Wade, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, testimony concerning his fingerprint was properly admitted into evidence although the actual record containing the print was not offered into evidence. The testimony was based on a business record and thus constituted an exception to the rule against hearsay ( see, CPLR 4518 [a]; Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-301 [Farrell 11th ed]). Additionally, a proper foundation was established ( see, People v Kennedy, 68 N.Y.2d 569, 579-580). Although the record itself was not offered into evidence, on the facts here this was appropriate in order to avoid risking undue prejudice to the defendant ( see, United States v. Baker, 442 F.2d 1024, cert denied 404 U.S. 883; People v. Balone, 52 A.D.2d 216; see also, People v. Woods, 161 A.D.2d 1176).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Miller, J.P., Copertino, Sullivan and Altman, JJ., concur.