PRENDERGAST v. PATEL

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court properly precluded their counsel from questioning the defendant Mukund R. Patel about a January 4, 1994, post-operative report he allegedly authored, and properly refused to allow the report to be offered into evidence. A trial court has broad discretion to limit cross-examination when questions are not relevant to the case or concern collateral issues (see Coopersmith v. Gold, 89 N.Y.2d 957; People v. Magrigor, 281 A.D.2d 561). Here, the January 4, 1994, post-operative report was collateral since it was not relevant to any issue other than Patel's credibility (see generally Matter of People v. Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, cert denied 396 U.S. 846).

RITTER, J.P., LUCIANO, COZIER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.