Evidence, albeit logically and technically relevant, is not necessarily admissible [and] will be excluded if it is too slight, remote, or conjectural to have any legitimate influence in determining the fact in issue. (Dermatossian v. New York City Tr. Auth., 67 N.Y.2d 219, 223.) Thus, the trial court properly excluded defendant's initial internal investigatory report, which, although it labeled defendant's driver "at fault", was based on defendant's internal rules and policies that exceeded the applicable common-law negligence standard of care, and was reduced on review to a finding of "questionable". Nor did the trial court err in refusing to give a Noseworthy charge (Noseworthy v. City of New York, 298 N.Y. 76, 80), where the decedent was alert after the accident and made statements concerning its cause to his companion at the scene, a responding police officer and hospital personnel that were put before the jury. We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Williams, J. P., Wallach, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.