You are here: / / THE WITNESS’S TRIAL TESTIMONY THAT HE DID NOT SEE THE PERPETRATOR’S...
,

THE WITNESS’S TRIAL TESTIMONY THAT HE DID NOT SEE THE PERPETRATOR’S FACE AND DID NOT SEE THE DEFENDANT FIRE A GUN MERELY FAILED TO CORROBORATE OR BOLSTER THE PEOPLE’S CASE, IT DID NOT CONTRADICT OR DISPROVE ANY EVIDENCE; THEREFORE THE PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THE WITNESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the prosecutor should not have been allowed to impeach her own witness because the witness’s testimony merely failed to corroborate or bolster the People’s case, it did not contradict or disprove any evidence. The witness testified he did not see the perpetrator’s face and did not see defendant fire a gun:

” … [B]efore a party may impeach its own witness, the testimony on a ‘material fact’ must ‘tend[ ] to disprove the party’s position or affirmatively damage[ ] the party’s case'” … . “Trial testimony that the witness has no knowledge of or cannot recall a particular event, whether truthful or not, does not affirmatively damage the People’s case” … . People v Sams, 2023 NY Slip Op 02684, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: In order to impeach their own witness, the witness’s testimony must have contradicted or disproved the People’s case. Here the witness’s testimony that he did not see the perpetrator’s face and did not see the defendant fire a gun merely failed to corroborate or bolster the People’s case, it did not disprove or contradict any evidence. Even if the testimony was untrue, the People should not have been allowed to impeach their own witness.

 

You might also like
THE BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE BANK’S UNEXCUSED FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED CONFERENCE IN VIOLATION OF 22 NYCRR 202.27(c) (SECOND DEPT).
A PLAINTIFF FACED WITH A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION NEED NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE OR AFFIDAVITS IN OPPOSITION BUT RATHER CAN STAND ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES IN THIS MAINTENANCE-ARREARS ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​
CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE WHETHER ASPIRIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMINISTERED AS TREATMENT FOR STROKE WAS RAISED IN A DEPOSITION (BUT NOT IN THE COMPLAINT OR BILL OF PARTICULARS) ALLOWED PLAINTIFF TO RAISE THE ISSUE IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO DISMISS THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT DID NOT RULE OUT LIABILITY BASED UPON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND THE COMPANY PROVIDING SECURITY AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PROCEEDING THROUGH AN INTERSECTION WHEN THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER ATTEMPTED A LEFT TURN, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE POLICE REPORT, PHOTOS AND DASHBOARD VIDEO WERE INADMISSIBLE AND DEFENDANT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE WAS FREE FROM FAULT (SECOND DEPT).
THE INSTALLATION OF LARGE INDVIDUAL LETTERS FOR A SIGN ON THE FRONT SOFFIT OF A BUILDING CONSTITUTED “ALTERING” THE BUILDING TO WHICH LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) APPLY; BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OF THE SOFFIT (WHICH COLLAPSED), THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Challenges for Cause Should Have Been Granted 

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

A SENTENCE CANNOT BE ALTERED AFTER THE DEFENDANT HAS BEGUN SERVING IT; HERE... DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO A LEVEL ONE BECAUSE HE HAD...