Tardif v. City of New York
- Kimba Wood
- 1:13-cv-04056
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Tardif v. City of New York, Judge Wood ruled Dr. Krishna’s 2012 felony tax-fraud conviction admissible to challenge his credibility at trial.
The ruling affects Mary Tardif and the City of New York in their trial, and permits the City to use Dr. Ranga C. Krishna’s conviction when challenging his credibility as an expert witness.
What happened
In Tardif v. City of New York, the City said it intended to question Dr. Ranga C. Krishna about his May 2012 felony tax-fraud conviction. Dr. Krishna was expected to testify as an expert about the cause of damage to Mary Tardif’s brain, traumatic brain injuries, and her current symptoms.
The court ruled that the conviction could be admitted even though it was more than ten years old. It found the conviction especially relevant to Dr. Krishna’s credibility because it involved dishonesty, false invoices, and later misrepresentations to a medical board. The court also found that his testimony was critical to the case and that no other clear way to challenge his trustworthiness was available.
Judge Kimba M. Wood concluded that the conviction’s value in evaluating Dr. Krishna’s credibility substantially outweighed its possible unfair effect and ruled that the conviction was admissible. The court also rejected the argument that Mary Tardif lacked reasonable written notice of the evidence.
The detailed version
- Tardif v. City of New York · No. 1:13-cv-04056
- Kimba Wood
- June 24, 2022
Background
The City of New York indicated that it intended to question Dr. Ranga C. Krishna about his May 2012 conviction for felony tax fraud under New York Tax Law § 1804. Dr. Krishna was expected to testify as an expert about the cause of signs of damage to Mary Tardif’s brain, the types of events that can cause traumatic brain injury, and Ms. Tardif’s reported current symptoms.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b) generally restricts the use for impeachment—challenging a witness’s credibility—of a conviction more than ten years old. The conviction may be admitted only if its value in evaluating the witness’s credibility, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. The court must make that finding on the record, and convictions of this age are admitted only in rare and exceptional circumstances.
Court’s analysis
The court found the conviction’s value to be high for several reasons. The conviction involved both a felony and dishonesty, making it admissible under both relevant parts of Federal Rule of Evidence 609. The conviction was also close to the ten-year cutoff: Dr. Krishna pleaded guilty less than ten years and two months before trial.
The court considered the underlying conduct significant. Dr. Krishna submitted four false invoices to support a deduction of $669,000 in false business expenses, thereby avoiding payment of $47,040 in taxes owed to New York State. The conduct involved misrepresentations in managing his former medical practice, Total Neuro Care P.C., and four state medical boards sanctioned him in connection with the conviction. The court found that submitting false information to enrich a medical practice was highly relevant to Dr. Krishna’s credibility as an expert medical witness.
The court also found that Dr. Krishna’s credibility was particularly important because he was the only expected expert on the listed medical issues. Although other ways might exist to challenge his expert conclusions, the court was not aware of another available way to challenge his trustworthiness. In addition, the court found that later events did not show he had reformed: the West Virginia Board of Medicine sanctioned him for misrepresentations in 2012 and 2016 about his felony conviction and prior medical-board discipline.
Notice issue and ruling
The court rejected any argument that Ms. Tardif had not received reasonable written notice of the Rule 609(b) materials. It explained that, after the trial was adjourned, trial began one month and nine days after the City notified her of its intention to introduce the conviction.
Judge Kimba M. Wood ruled that Dr. Krishna’s May 2012 felony tax-fraud conviction was admissible.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.