Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the trial court did not err in precluding them from attempting to elicit information from a defense witness regarding the content of medical texts, since what was sought to be adduced would have been improper hearsay ( see, Winant v. Carras, 208 A.D.2d 618, 619; see also, Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 7-313 [Farrell 11th ed]).
Upon our review of the record and the matters highlighted by the plaintiffs, we conclude that the plaintiffs were not denied a fair trial ( see, e.g., Rohring v. City of Niagara Falls, 192 A.D.2d 228, 230-231, affd 84 N.Y.2d 60; compare, Di Michel v. South Buffalo Ry. Co., 80 N.Y.2d 184, 198-200, cert denied sub nom. Poole v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 510 U.S. 816; Clarke v. New York City Tr. Auth., 174 A.D.2d 268). To the extent that the plaintiffs' remaining contention has merit, we find the alleged error to be harmless.
Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.