In Matter of Loren B. v. Sharon ZZ., 13 AD3d 998, 788 N.Y.S.2d 215 [3d Dep't 2004], the Appellate Division, Third Department, determined a psychologists's report was inadmissible because it included polygraph results and such results were not admissible because the scientific community does not deem them reliable. Furthermore, in Loren B. two (2) psychologists prepared the report and only one (1) testified. The one who testified was not the psychologist who had interviewed collateral sources. Further, the report relied on hearsay statements from people who had no business duty to report. The Court of Appeals has visited this area in the past and determined: "It is settled and unquestioned law that opinion evidence must be based on facts in the record or personally known to the witness.'" In People v. Sugden (35 NY2d 453, 323 N.E.2d 169, 363 N.Y.S.2d 923), we recognized two limited exceptions to this rule and held that an expert may rely on out-of-court material if it is of a kind accepted in the profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion "or if it" comes from a witness subject to full cross-examination on the trial'" (Hambsch New York City Transit Authority, 63 NY2d 723, 725-726, 469 N.E.2d 516, 480 N.Y.S.2d 195 [1984])