Key Takeaway
New York courts limit cross-examination on collateral issues like employment history and credit, as civil judgments cannot be used to attack witness credibility.
Understanding Limits on Cross-Examination: What Can and Cannot Be Used to Challenge Credibility
Cross-examination is a fundamental right in litigation, but it’s not unlimited. New York courts maintain strict boundaries on what evidence can be used to challenge a witness’s credibility, particularly when it comes to financial difficulties and employment issues. The Second Department’s decision in Quiroz v Zottola provides important guidance on these evidentiary limitations.
During trial, attorneys often seek to undermine opposing witnesses by exploring their personal financial struggles or employment problems. However, courts recognize that such inquiries can be more prejudicial than probative, leading jurors to make improper character judgments rather than focus on the actual testimony. This principle is especially relevant in personal injury cases where character attacks can unfairly influence damage assessments.
The distinction between what constitutes proper impeachment material versus collateral matters is crucial for trial strategy. Unlike criminal convictions or acts involving moral turpitude, civil financial judgments are generally considered off-limits for credibility attacks.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Quiroz v Zottola, 2015 NY Slip Op 04627 (2d Dept. 2015)
“Moreover, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in limiting the cross-examination of Zottola. The court properly limited the plaintiffs’ cross-examination of Zottola regarding his prior employment and negative credit history, due to the collateral nature of these issues (see Badr v Hogan, 75 NY2d 629, 635; Parsons v 218 E. Main St. Corp., 1 AD3d 420). We also note that, with respect to Zottola’s credit history, “civil judgments cannot be characterized as bad or immoral … acts involving moral turpitude that would allow them to be used to question the defendant’s credibility” (People v Heiss, 221 AD2d 562, 563).”
Key Takeaway
Trial courts have broad discretion to limit cross-examination on collateral issues like employment history and credit problems. Civil judgments, unlike criminal convictions, cannot be used to attack a witness’s credibility because they don’t involve moral turpitude or character issues relevant to truthfulness.
Related Articles
- Civil Court Decisions in No-Fault Insurance: When Legal Reasoning Goes Wrong
- Understanding Collateral Estoppel in No-Fault Arbitrations: Critical Insights for New York Insurance Claims
- The Court offers some guidance as to the business records exception
- Written opposition – the key to beating people on procedural defects
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this post’s publication in 2015, New York’s evidence rules and credibility impeachment standards may have evolved through appellate decisions or rule amendments. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding the admissibility of civil judgments for impeachment purposes and consult recent Second Department precedents that may have refined or modified the principles established in Quiroz v Zottola.
