From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Emkay Fifth Avenue, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 1991
172 A.D.2d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

April 15, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the trial court properly precluded the plaintiff from bolstering her trial testimony by use of a prior consistent statement contained in a hospital record. An impeached witness cannot be rehabilitated by his or her antecedent consistent statements unless the cross-examiner has created the inference of, or directly characterized the testimony as, a recent fabrication (see, People v. McClean, 69 N.Y.2d 426, 428). The cross-examination here was an attempt to challenge the reliability of the plaintiff Ann Smith's account of how the incident in question occurred, but was not an attempt to show that her testimony was a recent fabrication (see, Fishman v Scheuer, 39 N.Y.2d 502, 504). Sullivan, J.P., Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Smith v. Emkay Fifth Avenue, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 1991
172 A.D.2d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Smith v. Emkay Fifth Avenue, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ANN SMITH et al., Appellants, v. EMKAY FIFTH AVENUE, INC., Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 15, 1991

Citations

172 A.D.2d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
568 N.Y.S.2d 457

Citing Cases

Carr v. Burnwell Gas of Newark, Inc.

tness may not be corroborated or bolstered by evidence of prior consistent statements made before trial. . .…

Harvin v. New York City Transit Authority

We find that the trial court properly precluded the plaintiff's decedent, who was alive at the time of the…