You are here: / / IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS STATUS AS A DEFENDANT...
, , , ,

IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS STATUS AS A DEFENDANT IN A PENDING LAWSUIT WARRANTED GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the denial of plaintiff’s motion for a mistrial, determined plaintiff was improperly cross-examined about his status as a defendant in a pending lawsuit:

… Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion for a mistrial based upon improper cross-examination of the plaintiff about a pending lawsuit against him relating to his alleged failure to pay for an unrelated medical procedure. Where a lawsuit has not resulted in an adverse finding against a witness, counsel should not be permitted to ask the witness if he or she has been sued since the fact that a lawsuit has been commenced, in and of itself, has little or no probative value with regard to credibility … . Here, the court improvidently permitted defense counsel to cross-examine the plaintiff as to whether he was the defendant in a pending lawsuit alleging nonpayment, since the lawsuit had not resulted in an adverse finding against the plaintiff and the fact that the lawsuit had been commenced, in and of itself, had little to no probative value with regard to the plaintiff’s credibility … . Moreover, defense counsel’s reference to an allegation that the plaintiff had taken $200,000 in insurance proceeds that was not forwarded to medical providers and, after being precluded from ascertaining from the plaintiff whether that allegation was true, defense counsel’s reference to “someone” taking $250,000 that “didn’t belong to them,” prejudiced the plaintiff, who was the sole eyewitness on his behalf. Drayton v Putnam Hosp. Ctr., 2025 NY Slip Op 00845, Second Dept 2-13-25

Practice Point: The cross-examination of the plaintiff about his status as a defendant a pending lawsuit was improper and warranted a mistrial.

 

You might also like
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
SIDEWALK DAMAGE CAUSED BY TREE ROOTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AFFIRMATIVE NEGLIGENCE BY THE CITY; THEREFORE THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Police Officer Not Injured by “Recognized Hazard”—No Recovery Under Municipal Law/Labor Law—Officer Injured by Suspect After Mace Canister Failed
ALTHOUGH A JUDGE HAS THE DISCRETION TO PROHIBIT A PARTY FROM BRINGING ANY FURTHER PETITIONS FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION, HERE FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION; FATHER HAD NEVER FILED FRIVOLOUS PETITIONS OR FILED PETITIONS OUT OF ILL WILL OR SPITE (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH A DEFENSE AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT STATE IT WAS BASED ON FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE AND THE UNCERTIFIED POLICE REPORT WAS INADMISSIBLE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PROPERTY-DAMAGE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Allege a “Special Relationship” Between Insurance Broker and Client Required Dismissal of the “Breach of Fiduciary Duty” Cause of Action
THE JUDGE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE FAILED TO ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN TO THE JURY THE DIFFERENT DUTIES OWED BY THE TENANT AND THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING ABUTTING THE SIDEWALK; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; IN ADDITION, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD DAMAGE AWARDS FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURED ANKLE WERE EXCESSIVE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE RAISED A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION... HERE THE LLC AGREEMENT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TERMS, WAS UNILATERALLY AMENDED...