Being an exotic dance is not a prior bad act for impeachment purposes

Court Rules Exotic Dancing Employment Not Admissible as Prior Bad Act

The boundaries of what constitutes admissible evidence during cross-examination can sometimes blur, leading to questionable prosecutorial tactics. A recent Fourth Department decision provides important clarity on one such issue, establishing that a person’s employment as an exotic dancer does not constitute a “prior bad act” that can be used to impeach their credibility during trial testimony.

This ruling addresses a fundamental principle of evidence law: that prosecutors cannot introduce prejudicial information about a witness’s background unless it directly relates to their credibility or the facts of the case. The decision reinforces protections against character assassination disguised as legitimate cross-examination, similar to how courts scrutinize other forms of potentially prejudicial evidence in both criminal and civil proceedings.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

People v Agostini, 2011 NY Slip Op 03752 (4th Dept. 2011)

Great line from the Fourth Department

“efendant contends that he was denied a fair trial based on the prosecutor’s cross-examination of his wife concerning her prior employment as an exotic dancer. We agree with defendant that such questions were improper. Employment as an exotic dancer does not constitute a prior bad act for the purposes of cross-examination, and those questions were not relevant to any other issue in the case. We conclude, however, “that the prosecutor’s misconduct did not cause such substantial prejudice to the defendant that he has been denied due process of law”

What is scary is that County Court allowed this line of questioning and the Fourth Department found it harmless. Can someone who reads this from Syracuse tell me whether the water from Lake Onondaga is finding its way into the local water supply? For those that do not get the joke, google Lake Onondaga and General Electric. Yes, I used to live in Syracuse…

Key Takeaway

While the Fourth Department correctly established that exotic dancing cannot be used as impeachment evidence, the concerning aspect is that the trial court initially allowed such questioning and the appellate court deemed it “harmless error.” This decision highlights the ongoing need for vigilance in protecting witness rights during cross-examination, whether in criminal cases or civil litigation involving insurance disputes.

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 decision, New York’s evidence rules and impeachment standards may have been refined through subsequent appellate decisions or procedural amendments. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding character evidence admissibility and cross-examination limitations under the current Criminal Procedure Law and Evidence Rules, as judicial interpretations of impeachment boundaries continue to evolve.