Opinion
October 6, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the defendants' claim, the Supreme Court did not unduly interfere with the presentation of the case or improperly indicate any partiality or bias so as to warrant reversal. "A Trial Judge may `assume an active role in the examination of witnesses where proper or necessary * * * to facilitate or expedite the orderly progress of the trial'" ( Accardi v. City of New York, 121 A.D.2d 489, 491, quoting People v Ellis, 62 A.D.2d 469, 470). Furthermore, for the most part, the remarks between the court and the defense counsel occurred outside the presence of the jury, and therefore did not prejudice the defendants' case ( see, Garces v. Hip Hosp., 201 A.D.2d 615, 616; Berthoumieux v. We Try Harder, 170 A.D.2d 248, 249-250). Also contrary to the defendants' contention, the plaintiff sufficiently established a prima facie case of serious physical injury ( see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; § 5104 [a]).
The defendants' remaining contentions are either without merit, or, to the extent that any error occurred, harmless.
Mangano, P.J., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Luciano, JJ., concur.