WOLFF v. MAHRER (2000)

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained in a low-speed automobile collision.   On appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant based on a jury verdict finding that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury (see, Insurance Law § 5102[d] ), plaintiff contends that Supreme Court should have set aside the verdict and granted a new trial in the interest of justice on the ground that defendant's attorney improperly questioned witnesses concerning prejudicial matters.

 Questions asked by defendant's attorney of his own witnesses concerning plaintiff's reputation for truth and veracity were proper (see, Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 6-402-6-405 [Farrell 11th ed.] ), as were questions asked of plaintiff on cross-examination.   A witness may be impeached by questioning concerning any prior immoral, vicious, or criminal acts that may show him to be unworthy of belief (see, Badr v. Hogan, 75 N.Y.2d 629, 635, 555 N.Y.S.2d 249, 554 N.E.2d 890;  see generally, Prince, Richardson on Evidence, op. cit., §§ 6-406, 6-407).   Questions asked by defendant's attorney in cross-examining plaintiff's witness were likewise proper.   Evidence of the character of a party or witness is generally inadmissible in a civil action (see, O'Connell v. Jacobs, 181 A.D.2d 1064, 583 N.Y.S.2d 61, affd. 81 N.Y.2d 797, 595 N.Y.S.2d 388, 611 N.E.2d 289;  Noonan v. Luther, 206 N.Y. 105, 108, 99 N.E. 178), and questions concerning prior bad acts generally may not be asked of a witness other than the one who committed those acts (see, Badr v. Hogan, supra, at 635, 555 N.Y.S.2d 249, 554 N.E.2d 890).   Here, however, defendant's attorney properly inquired whether the witness was aware of plaintiff's prior bad acts in an effort to impeach the witness's testimony, elicited over defendant's objection, concerning plaintiff's good character and reputation for truth and veracity (see, People v. Garrick, 246 A.D.2d 478, 667 N.Y.S.2d 747, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 852, 677 N.Y.S.2d 82, 699 N.E.2d 442;  cf., Taylor v. Heft, 150 App.Div. 509, 513, 135 N.Y.S. 450).

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: