Several decisions concerning evidentiary issues have caught my attention this past week.

CPLR § 4513 states, "A person who has been convicted of a crime is a competent witness; but the conviction may be proved, for the purpose of affecting the weight of his testimony, either by cross-examination, upon which he shall be required to answer any relevant question, or by the record. The party cross-examining is not concluded by such person's answer."

Impeachment of a witness's credibility is important to cross-examination. Impeachment of medical providers has come up a lot lately in New York. For example, the Appellate Division, First Department in Caminiti v Extell W. 57th St. LLC, concluded that the defense attorney properly impeached the decedent's primary care physician with federal charges involving dishonesty and underlying facts. The First Department noted that the trial court should not have allowed extrinsic evidence of the physician's divorce proceeding and administrative appeal.

In Coakley v New York City Transit Auth., Supreme Court, New York County (Clynes, J.), granted the plaintiff's motion to preclude the defendants from cross-examining the plaintiff's treating surgeon and anyone affiliated with him concerning a recent federal lawsuit against him. The lawsuit has not been fully adjudicated, and the Supreme Court concluded that the veracity of the allegation had not been determined. The Court stated that the allegations of misconduct are unproven and had no bearing on any issue in the case. (see Download Coakley Decision and Order)

A second case — McGill v Whitney Museum of Art — granted a plaintiff's motion to preclude on a similar issue as presented in Coakley (see Download McGill v Whitney Museum of Am. Art (2024 NY Slip Op 51271(U))).