You are here: / / IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT REQUIRED NEW TRIAL.

IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT REQUIRED NEW TRIAL.

The Fourth Department ordered a new trial in a personal injury action because defense counsel violated rules of evidence re: impeachment with collateral matters. Defense counsel improperly introduced evidence of plaintiff's drug test results and improperly informed the jury of prior lawsuits brought by plaintiff:

It is well settled that a cross-examiner at trial is “bound by the answers of the witness to questions on collateral matters inquired into solely to affect credibility” … , and extrinsic evidence cannot be used to impeach a witness's credibility after the witness has provided an answer with which the cross-examiner is unsatisfied … . Here, defense counsel asked plaintiff during cross-examination whether she had failed an employment-related drug test, a collateral issue relevant only to plaintiff's credibility. In response, plaintiff testified that the test result was a “false positive” that was proved false upon retesting. Defense counsel then violated the collateral evidence rule when she not only referred to a lack of evidence supporting plaintiff's assertion, but introduced the drug test result in evidence in an attempt to impeach plaintiff's credibility … .

The impact of that improper conduct was compounded when defense counsel thereafter questioned defendant's medical expert, over plaintiff's objection, about “drug use history” notations in plaintiff's medical records that, according to the expert, raised questions as to plaintiff's “credibility.” * * *

Finally, despite the court's pretrial ruling precluding defendants from questioning plaintiff about a personal injury claim she had filed in connection with a prior accident, defense counsel, over objection, asked plaintiff if she had been involved in any “legal action” related to her “neck and/or back condition.” Because evidence of prior accidents and lawsuits related thereto “may not [be used to] . . . demonstrate that plaintiff is litigious and therefore unworthy of belief” … , it was error for the court to allow that questioning. In our view, the improper attacks on plaintiff's credibility, viewed as a whole, denied plaintiff a fair trial. Dunn v Garrett, 2016 NY Slip Op 03283, 4th Dept 4-29-16


You might also like
PLAINTIFF LOAN SERVICING COMPANY WAIVED THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE PROVISION BY ITS RELENTLESS EFFORTS TO PREVENT THE FORECLOSURE SALE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER (TO EXACT A HIGHER PRICE); THE SANCTIONS IMPOSED ON PLAINTIFF WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY A WRITTEN DECISION AS REQUIRED BY THE CONTROLLING REGULATION; SANCTIONS ASPECT REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT AND THEREFORE DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNNING; THE IN REM FORECLOSURE ACTION REMAINS VIABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
HERE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ADJUDICATED DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT).
Excess Insurance Policies Re: Same Risk Cancel Out
RACE TRACK WAIVER OF LIABILITY INVALID, PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK NOT APPLICABLE, IMPLIED ASSUMPTION OF RISK APPLICABLE, LAW OF THE CASE DID NOT PRECLUDE DIRECTED VERDICT AFTER DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE SAME ISSUES.
County Department of Human Services Was Entitled to a Hearing On Whether It Should Be Held In Contempt for Failing to Place a Person In Need of Supervision In Foster Care
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DURING A WATER POLO GAME IN GYM CLASS; HIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
INJURY FROM A SAFETY BAR IN A BOBCAT WHICH FELL AFTER PLAINTIFF RAISED IT TO STEP OUT OF THE MACHINE DID NOT RESULT FROM A SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE VIABLE HOWEVER (FOURTH 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

STATE WATER RESOURCES LAW DID NOT PREEMPT ZONING BOARD’S REQUIRING TOWN... PROPERTY OWNER (LANDLORD) LIABLE FOR PAYMENT FOR ELECTRICAL WORK REQUIRED BY...