Opinion
1164 CA 18–00133
12-21-2018
Helena UBILES, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Tara L. HALLIWELL–KEMP, as Administrator of the Estate of Gary G. Halliwell, Deceased, Defendant–Appellant.
KENNEY SHELTON LIPTAK NOWAK LLP, BUFFALO (RICHARD T. SARAF OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. CELLINO & BARNES, P.C., BUFFALO (GREGORY V. PAJAK OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT.
KENNEY SHELTON LIPTAK NOWAK LLP, BUFFALO (RICHARD T. SARAF OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
CELLINO & BARNES, P.C., BUFFALO (GREGORY V. PAJAK OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
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]hilea 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] ).