## Facts

- The plaintiff sued for damages alleging assault and a scheme to defraud, and sought punitive damages.
- Defendants denied liability and asserted justification based on the plaintiff’s conduct and threats.
- At the plaintiff’s deposition, defense counsel asked whether the plaintiff had ever been convicted of a crime, whether he had used any other name within the prior five years, and what his addresses had been during that period.
- Plaintiff’s counsel objected and instructed the plaintiff not to answer.
- Defendants moved to compel answers, relying on New York’s broad disclosure rule and the admissibility of convictions to impeach credibility.

## Issues

1. Whether, under CPLR 3101(a), a civil plaintiff can be compelled at deposition to answer questions about prior criminal convictions as information material and necessary to the defense.
2. Whether a civil plaintiff can be compelled at deposition to disclose other names used and addresses over the prior five years as discoverable identifying information tied to credibility investigation.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion to compel.
- The plaintiff was ordered to answer all three deposition questions regarding convictions, other names used within five years, and addresses during the same period.

## Legal Principles

- CPLR 3101(a) permits broad pretrial disclosure of matter “material and necessary” to prosecution or defense, construed to include information that may assist trial preparation and evaluation of proof.
- Under CPLR 4513, prior criminal convictions may be used to impeach a witness’s credibility; therefore, a party-witness’s conviction history is a proper subject of discovery when the party is likely to testify.
- Discovery is not confined to facts proving liability or damages; it may include impeachment-oriented inquiry that bears on credibility.
- Basic identifying information, including aliases and residence history, is generally discoverable where it facilitates investigation of a witness’s background relevant to credibility.

## Conclusion

The court held that New York’s liberal discovery rules allow pretrial examination into a party-witness’s prior convictions, aliases, and recent addresses because such information bears on credibility and is material and necessary to trial preparation.


Goberman v. McNamara, 76 Misc. 2d 791, 352 N.Y.S.2d 369 (Sup. Ct. Kings County 1974)