If Frontage seeks to have Coleman take a position in the City action which is inconsistent with the one he took in the Commonwealth Action, the City may cross-examine him on these conflicting statements. See Robinson v. Old Colony Street Railway, 189 Mass. 594, 596 (1905); Longo v. Bd. of Appeals of Malden, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 835, 835 (1978) (proper to allow evidence that plaintiff assigned lower value to property in application for abatement to impeach him); Cohen v. Boston Redevelopment Auth., 5 Mass. App. Ct. 784, 785 (1977) (no abuse of discretion in allowing question to impeach credibility of land valuation witness who had testified to a lower figure at auditor's hearing). Therefore, this court will not exclude Coleman's prior testimony in the Commonwealth Action concerning the highest and best use for the remainder parcel and his opinion on the value of that parcel.