Opinion
June 6, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Trial Judge properly exercised its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial based on certain comments made by the Trial Judge concerning the existence of an "epidermoid tumor". It is well settled that "[a] motion for a mistrial is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court" (see, Harris v Village of E. Hills, 41 N.Y.2d 446, 451), and we perceive no reason on the record before us to substitute our discretion for that of the Trial Judge. We note that the comprehensive curative instruction administered by the court — to which counsel registered no objection — served to dissipate any alleged prejudice engendered by the comments (see, Hiliuk v Daponte, 100 A.D.2d 612). Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.