Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In our view, defendant's testimony that there was no basis for stating that plaintiff's decedent was suffering from a hormonal mass was not admitted in violation of the Dead Man's Statute (CPLR 4519). By testifying on her own behalf concerning defendant's examination of her mother on July 13, 1979, plaintiff waived the protection of the statute and opened the door to this limited testimony (see, Matter of Wood, 52 N.Y.2d 139, 145; Cole v Sweet, 187 N.Y. 488, 491). To hold otherwise would be to condone "the unfair use of the statute as a sword rather than a shield" (Matter of Wood, supra, at 145; see also, Matter of Radus, 140 A.D.2d 348, 349).
The court did not err by admitting limited testimony concerning the protocol defendant followed when conducting breast examinations on his patients (see, Halloran v Virginia Chems., 41 N.Y.2d 386, 392).
Defense counsel's summation was fair comment on the evidence and plaintiff's claim that defense counsel needlessly interrupted her attorney's summation is meritless in light of the fact that four of the six objections registered by defense counsel were sustained.