Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
"The determination of what evidence may be introduced for purposes of impeachment lies within the sound discretion of the trial court" ( People v. Coleman, 56 N.Y.2d 269, 273; see also, Gedrin v. Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Ctr., 119 A.D.2d 799). Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the respondents to pose certain questions to the plaintiffs' expert during cross-examination.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and giving the plaintiffs the benefit of every favorable inference, they did not establish a prima facie case that the respondents deviated or departed from good and accepted medical practice or that the plaintiff Sandra Kelly's injuries were proximately caused by any such departure ( see, Gross v. Friedman, 138 A.D.2d 571, affd 73 N.Y.2d 721; Hylick v. Halweil, 112 A.D.2d 400). Consequently, the court properly granted the respondents' respective motions for judgment as a matter of law.
S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.