DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Whether expert testimony is admissible on a particular matter is generally a mixed question of law and fact addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court (see Selkowitz v. County of Nassau, 45 N.Y.2d 97, 101-102). The trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the defendants' medical experts to testify as to whether the subject accident could have caused the plaintiffs' injuries. Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the experts did not testify about matters beyond their skill and expertise (see generally Edgewater Apts. v. Flynn, 216 A.D.2d 53, 54).
The trial court properly declined the plaintiffs' request to charge the jury that they could recover under theories of aggravation of a pre-existing condition or precipitation or activation of a latent disease or condition, as the evidence did not support such charges (see Haase v. Cole, 236 A.D.2d 860, 861).
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the trial court properly denied their motion for a mistrial. The trial court did not display any bias or prejudice against the plaintiffs' counsel (see Pallotta v. West Bend Co., 166 A.D.2d 637, 639).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, FLORIO and S. MILLER, JJ., concur.