Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion under CPLR 4404 (a) in setting aside the jury verdict and granting a new trial to the defendant Rama Koslowe (hereinafter the defendant) based on the pervasive inflammatory and improper summation remarks of counsel for the plaintiff ( see Pagano v Murray, 309 AD2d 910; King v City of New York, 209 AD2d 673; Steidel v County of Nassau, 182 AD2d 809; Weinberger v City of New York, 97 AD2d 819, 820; La Russo v Pollack, 88 AD2d 584; see also Berkowitz v Marriott Corp., 163 AD2d 52).
We note that the trial court properly precluded, during the defendant's cross-examination of the plaintiff's expert witness, the use of a deposition transcript from an unrelated case in which that expert witness previously testified ( see Caserta v Levittown School Dist., 12 AD3d 549; Linker v Sears Roebuck Co., 232 AD2d 613; Ingebretsen v Manha, 218 AD2d 784).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are academic in light of our determination.