Although the defense counsel's actions in denigrating plaintiffs' experts and seeking to elicit irrelevant collateral matters fell significantly below the appropriate standard of advocacy, virtually none of the comments complained of have been preserved for appellate review by either timely objection or a motion for a mistrial ( Camperlengo v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 239 A.D.2d 150) and we decline to reach them ( cf., Berkowitz v. Marriott Corp., 163 A.D.2d 52). It was not erroneous to allow defendant's attorney to cross-examine on either the contents or the theories set forth in plaintiffs' bill of particulars. The court's comments did not demonstrate bias toward either side. We find that the court's occasional questioning of witnesses was similarly free from bias and was designed to clarify the issues ( compare, Taromina v. Presbyterian Hosp., 242 A.D.2d 505, and Schrager v. New York Univ., 227 A.D.2d 189, with William Capital Assocs. v. Harrison, 240 A.D.2d 198). We have considered plaintiffs' other contentions and find that they do not warrant a different result.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Wallach, Williams and Colabella, JJ.