On February 13, 2026, Justice Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in S.A.R.L. Galerie Enrico Navarra v. Marlborough Gallery Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op. 30551(U), excluding evidence of a party’s conviction arising from an earlier case involving the opposing party, explaining:
CPLR 4513 provides that a person who has been convicted of a crime is a competent witness; but the conviction may be proved, for the purpose of affecting the weight of his testimony, either by cross-examination, upon which he shall be required to answer any relevant question, or by the record. The party cross-examining is not concluded by such person’s answer. That said, CPLR 4513 does not mandate that all convictions must be admitted; the trial court retains discretion to exclude such evidence in appropriate circumstances.
As the Court of Appeals has observed, even where technically relevant evidence is admissible, it may still be excluded by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that it will unfairly prejudice the other side or mislead the jury.
Here, the Court finds that Mr. Navarra’s French conviction has little (if any) of the probative impeachment value envisioned by CPLR 4513, and any legitimate impeachment value it might have is outweighed by the risk of jury confusion and undue prejudice to Plaintiff. First, although slander apparently is a criminal matter in France, the circumstances suggest it is highly unlikely that Mr. Navarra’s alleged conduct would create anything more than civil liability (if that, given constitutional restraints) under New York law, which would place it outside the intended ambit of CPLR 4513. Second, even under French law, Mr. Navarra’s conviction was extinguished as a result of his death.
Third, the Court finds that introduction of the French conviction would be confusing to the jury and unduly prejudicial. Here, the jury will hear a reading of Mr. Navarro’s deposition testimony followed by (if Defendants have their way) introduction of evidence of the conviction without context or any ability for Mr. Navarra to explain the circumstances. Although there are circumstances in which it is appropriate (indeed, necessary) to impeach a critical fact witness with prior criminal convictions to ensure a fair trial, the Court finds it would not be appropriate here.
Defendants’ reliance on Sansevere is misplaced. In that case, the sole eyewitness who identified the offending vehicle in a traffic accident was unavailable to testify at trial because he was imprisoned more than 100 miles from the courthouse. Instead, the witness’s testimony was provided to the jury via deposition testimony that was taken while the witness was incarcerated for a different offense. In those circumstances, the trial court improvidently excluded evidence that the witness was deposed in prison and had an extensive history of criminal convictions that could bear on his credibility, which in turn permitted the jury to believe that there was no reason whatsoever to doubt his veracity. By contrast, Mr. Navarra is not a central (let alone the sole) fact witness, and according to the record on this motion he has a single French conviction for slander in an unrelated context rather than a long history of criminal behavior.
In sum, Sansevere is distinguishable and the Court finds that preclusion of the French conviction would not deprive the Plaintiff of a fair trial.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).