Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
COR CANADA ROAD COMPANY, LLC, COR Land Company, LLC, COR Route 31 Company, LLC, and COR Collamer Road Company, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DUNN & SGROMO ENGINEERS, PLLC, Defendant-Respondent.
Plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment in this professional malpractice action entered upon a jury verdict of no cause of action with respect to plaintiffs and finding in favor of defendant on its counterclaim. We reject plaintiffs' contention that Supreme Court erred in permitting defendant's attorney to use extrinsic evidence to cross-examine a witness with respect to the credibility of that witness. Although it is “well settled that extrinsic evidence introduced solely to impeach credibility on a collateral issue is, with special exceptions, inadmissible” (Halloran v. Virginia Chems., 41 N.Y.2d 386, 390, 393 N.Y.S.2d 341, 361 N.E.2d 991), here the extrinsic evidence previously was introduced by plaintiffs as part of their case-in-chief. Plaintiffs further contend that the court abused its discretion in allowing that cross-examination and that a new trial thus is required. Even assuming, arguendo, that the court thereby abused its discretion, we nevertheless conclude that a new trial is not required because any such “error did not adversely affect a substantial right of the plaintiff[s]” (Getlin v. St. Vincent's Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of N.Y., 117 A.D.2d 707, 709, 498 N.Y.S.2d 849; see CPLR 2002).
Contrary to the further contention of plaintiffs, the court did not abuse its discretion in precluding one of their experts from testifying concerning certain matters on the ground that such testimony would be cumulative. “ ‘Whether [testimony] should be excluded as cumulative is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the trial court’ and the exclusion of [that] testimony constituted a sound exercise of discretion in this case” (Clemons v. Vanderpool, 289 A.D.2d 1078, 1079, 735 N.Y.S.2d 705; cf. Shafran v. St. Vincent's Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 264 A.D.2d 553, 556, 694 N.Y.S.2d 642).
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order and judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 17, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)