9 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Walker

    83 N.Y.2d 455 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 494 times
    Noting the general rule that "the nature and extent of cross-examination are matters that are entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court"
  2. Badr v. Hogan

    75 N.Y.2d 629 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 94 times
    Holding that the trial court committed reversible error in permitting defense counsel to cross-examine plaintiff in contravention of the rule barring the use of extrinsic evidence to contradict a witness's answers on collateral matters — here, her denial that she had received public welfare funds to which she was not entitled — for the sole purpose of impeaching the witness's credibility
  3. Matter of Brandon

    55 N.Y.2d 206 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 91 times
    Noting the failure of some courts to distinguish between the weak similarity requirement of the intent exception from the strong similarity requirement of the common plan exception
  4. Coopersmith v. Gold

    89 N.Y.2d 957 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 34 times

    Argued January 9, 1997 Decided February 11, 1997 APPEAL from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered January 16, 1996, which, with two Justices dissenting, affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court (Joan Lefkowitz, J.), entered in Rockland County, upon a jury verdict in favor of defendants, dismissing the complaint. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays Handler, L.L.P., New York City (James D. Herschlein and Sheila S. Boston of counsel), for appellant

  5. Sidoti v. State Board

    55 A.D.3d 1162 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 19 times

    October 30, 2008. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this Court pursuant to Public Health Law § 230-c) to review a determination of respondent Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct which revoked petitioner's license to practice medicine in New York. Before: Lahtinen, Kane, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ. Spain, J.P. Petitioner has been authorized to practice medicine in New York since 1991. In 2006, the Bureau of Professional Medical Conduct (hereinafter BPMC) charged

  6. Cipriano v. Ho

    29 Misc. 3d 952 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)   Cited 5 times
    In Cipriano v. Ho, 29 Misc.3d 952, 908 N.Y.S.2d 552 (Sup.Ct., Kings County 2010), this Court considered the admissibility or use of professional misconduct findings in a malpractice action against the disciplined doctor.
  7. Torres v. Ashmawy

    24 Misc. 3d 506 (N.Y. Misc. 2009)   Cited 3 times
    In Torres v. Ashmawy, M.D., 24 Misc. 3d 506, 875 N.Y.S.2d 781, another medical malpractice case, the Defendant doctor submitted a motion in limine for an order to preclude the introduction into evidence at trial of evidence or references to the administrative proceedings, findings and/or determination of the BPMC of one of the doctors and that doctor's subsequent conviction for attempted unauthorized practice of medicine.
  8. Matter of Carlos

    192 A.D.2d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 5 times

    April 19, 1993 Appeal from the Family Court, Westchester County (Braslow, J.). Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We find that the court did not err when it permitted the presentment agency to cross-examine the appellant as to whether he committed certain specific criminal acts, as the agency had a good faith basis for the questions (see, Badr v Hogan, 75 N.Y.2d 629; People v De Pasquale, 54 N.Y.2d 693; Richardson, Evidence § 498 [Prince 10th ed]).

  9. Spanier v. New York City Transit Authority

    222 A.D.2d 219 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 2 times

    December 5, 1995 Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.). The IAS Court properly allowed defendant's counsel to ask plaintiff's treating physician about prior allegations of improper billing, and other misconduct, since those allegations had a bearing on the doctor's credibility ( Badr v Hogan, 75 N.Y.2d 629, 634). Plaintiff complains about counsel's reference during cross examination to the disciplinary statement of charges brought against the doctor with respect to this