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.
Helena UBILES, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Tara L. HALLIWELL–KEMP, as Administrator of the Estate of Gary G. Halliwell, Deceased, Defendant–Appellant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this negligence action against her former landlord, decedent Gary G. Halliwell, seeking to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell on ice outside her apartment building. Defendant appeals from an order and judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding that decedent was negligent, that defendant, as administrator of decedent's estate, was 100% liable for plaintiff's injuries, and that plaintiff was not comparatively negligent. We affirm.
We reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court abused its discretion in precluding her from impeaching plaintiff at trial with evidence of a criminal conviction from 2002. “[W]hile a civil litigant is granted broad authority to use the criminal convictions of a witness to impeach the credibility of that witness, the nature and extent of cross-examination, including with respect to criminal convictions, remains firmly within the discretion of the trial court” (Tornatore v. Cohen, 162 A.D.3d 1503, 1504, 78 N.Y.S.3d 542 [4th Dept. 2018]; see CPLR 4513; cf. Morgan v. National City Bank, 32 A.D.3d 1264, 1265, 822 N.Y.S.2d 201 [4th Dept. 2006]; see generally Bodensteiner v. Vannais, 167 A.D.2d 954, 954, 561 N.Y.S.2d 1017 [4th Dept. 1990] ), and we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in precluding defendant from impeaching plaintiff with evidence of a drug conviction from 15 years earlier (see Siemucha v. Garrison, 111 A.D.3d 1398, 1399–1400, 975 N.Y.S.2d 518 [4th Dept. 2013]; cf. Sansevere v. United Parcel Serv., 181 A.D.2d 521, 523, 581 N.Y.S.2d 315 [1st Dept. 1992] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 1164
Decided: December 21, 2018
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)