You are here: / / CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A POLICE OFFICER ABOUT A CIVIL LAWSUIT SHOULD HAVE...
,

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A POLICE OFFICER ABOUT A CIVIL LAWSUIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED; CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the hearing and trial courts should have allowed cross-examination of a police officer about a lawsuit naming the officer:

Both the hearing and trial courts erred in denying defendant’s request to cross-examine a police officer regarding allegations of misconduct in a civil lawsuit in which it was claimed, among other things, that this particular officer arrested the plaintiff without suspicion of criminality and lodged false charges against him … . The civil complaint contained specific allegations of falsification by this officer that bore on his credibility at both the hearing and trial. At each proceeding, this officer was the only witness for the People. People v Burgess, 2019 NY Slip Op 09364, First Dept 12-26-19

 

You might also like
THE 2020 AMENDMENTS TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 70, THE ANTI-SLAPP LAW, DO NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO THE PLAINTIFF’S PENDING DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
RES IPSA LOQUITUR NEEDN’T BE ALLEGED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM OR THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE IT IS NOT A THEORY OF LIABILITY, IT IS AN EVIDENTIARY RULE; NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION CAN BE INFERRED UNDER THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).
Party Who Was Both a Plaintiff and a Defendant in a Joint Trial of Two Actions Was Properly Allowed to Have Two Attorneys
OSTENSIBLE NON EMPLOYER WAS NOT A JOINT EMPLOYER SUBJECT TO EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LIABILITY; CRITERIA FOR JOINT EMPLOYER STATUS EXPLAINED.
Revocation of Plumber’s License Too Severe a Penalty
Language in the Arbitration Agreement Supported the Applicability of the New York Law Reserving the Determination of a Statute of Limitations Defense to the Court, Even Though the Controlling Federal Arbitration Act Presumptively Reserves the Determination of a Statute of Limitations Defense to the Arbitrator
HERE THERE WAS NO VALID REASON TO DENY DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
Exclusion of Defendant’s Brother from the Courtroom Based Upon the Fear of a Testifying Witness Was Proper, Despite Lack of Express Findings by Trial Judge

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

A PORTION OF THE NYC CHARTER WHICH ALLOWS UNLIMITED SEARCHES OF PAWNBROKERS,... INSURANCE REGULATION WHICH PROHIBITS TITLE INSURERS FROM PROVIDING VALUABLE...