Opinion
Argued December 6, 1938
Decided January 11, 1939
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
Robert R. Bauman and Arthur L. Obre for appellant. B.G. Barton for respondent.
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 RIPPEY, JJ., concur.
Judgments reversed, etc.