De Stasio v. Janssen Dairy Corp.

18 N.E.2d 833, 279 N.Y. 501, 1939 N.Y. LEXIS 884
New York Court of Appeals·Decided January 11, 1939·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Evidence that a plaintiff, in an action for negligence growing out of the operation of an automobile, has been previously convicted for a traffic infraction as defined by the Vehicle and Traffic Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 71), shall not be received to affect his credibility when a witness in an action or proceeding, and he may not be required to disclose a conviction therefor (Civ. Prac. Act, § 355).

Plaintiff was repeatedly required to disclose such previous convictions. In a case as close as this such error cannot be disregarded.

The judgments should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Bippey, JJ., concur.

Judgments reversed, etc.

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

De Stasio v. Janssen Dairy Corp., 18 N.E.2d 833, 279 N.Y. 501, 1939 N.Y. LEXIS 884 (N.Y. 1939).

18 N.E.2d 833 (De Stasio v. Janssen Dairy Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Como v. Bastolla
19 A.D.2d 531 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1963)
Walther v. News Syndicate Co.
276 A.D.2d 169 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1949)
Matter of Hart v. Mealey
38 N.E.2d 121 (New York Court of Appeals, 1941)