
    AHNERT v. UNION RY. CO. OF NEW YORK CITY.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    May 15, 1908.)
    Evidence—Competency—Similar Evidence of Adverse Party.
    Opinion testimony of plaintiff’s witness, though ordinarily inadmissible, was rendered competent by defendant’s cross-examination of plaintiff along the same lines and over plaintiff’s objection.
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, Second District.
    Action by Carl H. Ahnert against the Union Railway Company of New York City. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and GIEGERICH and GREENBAUM, JJ.
    Anthony J. Ernest, for appellant.
    Liebman, Naumburg & Tanzer (David Levy, of counsel), for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The opinion testimony asked of plaintiff’s witness, to which defendant objected, would ordinarily have been inadmissible; but defendant’s cross-examination of the plaintiff along the same lines over plaintiff’s objection opened the door to otherwise incompetent proof. Van Ingen v. Mail & Express Pub. Co., 156 N. Y. 376, 388, 50 N. E. 979.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  