Claim of Fisher v. One Oak Dairy, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Fisher v. One Oak Dairy, Inc.

274 A.D. 274, 82 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3054

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 24, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 274 A.D. 274 (Claim of Fisher v. One Oak Dairy, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Claim of Fisher v. One Oak Dairy, Inc., 274 A.D. 274, 82 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3054 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appeal by employer and carrier from an award of compensation in a death action. The evidence is sufficient to support the findings of the board that the deceased employee met his death as the result of an industrial accident.

No reversible error was committed by the referee in limiting cross-examination or in the reception of evidence relative to the criminal record of the witness Sheppard. In any judicial or quasi-judicial inquiry the credibility of any witness is always a most important factor. Irrespective of section 118 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, that credibility may be attacked by proof that the witness has been convicted of a crime. Such proof may be adduced either on cross-examination or by the record of conviction. In the instant case the witness was not [275]*275asked that specific question, nor was the judgment of conviction offered in evidence, and although the referee trod close to the line of error he did not cross it. Furthermore, the record and the admissions of counsel clearly indicate that the referee was fully aware of the conviction when he passed upon the credibility of the witness.

The award should be affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Hill, P. J., Heeeernan, Brewster, Russell and Deyo, JJ., concur.

Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Appeal by employer and carrier from an award of compensation in a death action. The evidence is sufficient to support the findings of the board that the deceased employee met his death as the result of an industrial accident.

No reversible error was committed by the referee in limiting cross-examination or in the reception of evidence relative to the criminal record of the witness Sheppard. In any judicial or quasi-judicial inquiry the credibility of any witness is always a most important factor. Irrespective of section 118 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, that credibility may be attacked by proof that the witness has been convicted of a crime. Such proof may be adduced either on cross-examination or by the record of conviction. In the instant case the witness was not [275]*275asked that specific question, nor was the judgment of conviction offered in evidence, and although the referee trod close to the line of error he did not cross it. Furthermore, the record and the admissions of counsel clearly indicate that the referee was fully aware of the conviction when he passed upon the credibility of the witness.

The award should be affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Hill, P. J., Heeeernan, Brewster, Russell and Deyo, JJ., concur.

Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D. 274, 82 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-fisher-v-one-oak-dairy-inc-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack