Case ID: nys_111/html/0521-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

OPPER v. DAVEGA.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    June 12, 1908.)
    Witnesses—Credibility—Impeachment—Place or B usiness—Character.
    Where plaintiff, in an action for intestate’s death by falling into an unguarded cellarway, relied on the evidence of a saloon keeper to establish his cause of action, evidence of the police captain in the precinct in which the witness’ saloon was located that the saloon had a bad reputation, and that the officer had arrested several women there and had raided the place twice, was inadmissible for purposes of impeachment.
    [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 50, Witnesses, §§ 1120, 1125,]
    Appeal from Special Term.
    Action by John Opper, as administrator of the estate of Henry Opper, deceased, against Isaac Davega, Jr., impleaded, etc. From an order setting aside a verdict for defendant, and granting plaintiff a new trial, defendant, Davega, appeals.
    Affirmed.
    The action was brought to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s intestate, caused by injuries sustained from falling into an open and unguarded cellarway, maintained by defendant at Nos. 802, 804, Third avenue, New York City, borough of Manhattan. Plaintiff had but one disinterested witness, one Wasserberger, a saloon keeper, without whose testimony plaintiff could not have recovered. During the course of defendant’s case defendant swore one Lantry, a police captain, as a witness, who testified that the place occupied by Wasserberger had a bad reputation, that he had made several arrests there, had arrested five women and raided the place twice, but the witness made no attempt to testify that the witness’ reputation was bad.
    Argued before INGRAHAM, McLAUGHLIN, HOUGHTON, CLARKE, and SCOTT,, JJ.
    David Tim, for appellant.
    Thos. J. O’Neill, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from should be affirmed on the ground that the admission of the testimony of the police captain was error.

Order affirmed, with costs.