A pair of medical malpractice plaintiffs who lost their case received a fair trial despite the judge admonishing and holding in contempt their trial lawyer for “boorish and, at times, contemptuous” behavior, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday.

A unanimous Appellate Division, Second Department, panel upheld the dismissal of plaintiffs Xiao Yan Chen's and Tian Zeng Li's medical malpractice suit. The panel said Kings County Supreme Court Justice Michelle Weston's actions taken against their lawyer did not prejudice the trial's outcome, in which a jury ruled in favor of the defendant hospital and physician.

“A trial court has broad authority to control the courtroom, rule on the admission of evidence, elicit and clarify testimony, expedite the proceedings, and admonish counsel and witnesses when necessary,” the panel wrote. It added that Weston's comments made to and rulings against plaintiffs' lawyer Robert Ginsberg of Ginsberg & Wolf in Manhattan “were not sufficiently prejudicial or pervasive to deprive the plaintiffs of a fair trial.”

Chen and Li brought suit in 2010 against several defendants, including Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn and Dr. Lim Tse. The pair claimed that in 2009, Chen went to Tse to determine whether she was pregnant and that, fearing she had an ectopic pregnancy, Tse referred her to the emergency room at Maimonides Medical Center, the panel wrote.

Chen and Li alleged in their malpractice suit that Tse and Maimonides misdiagnosed Chen with an ectopic pregnancy and administered Methotrexate to her, which aborted her pregnancy. A third defendant, another physician, was removed from the lawsuit by stipulation in 2011.

At trial in 2014, Weston had multiple run-ins with Ginsberg that led to her reprimanding him and holding him in contempt of court for his courtroom conduct, according to the panel.

The opinion did not detail Ginsberg's infractions, but the panel—comprised of Justices John Leventhal, Sylvia Hinds-Radix, Hector LaSalle and Valerie Brathwaite Nelson—wrote that Weston was doing her job and “did not demonstrate bias” against Ginsberg when she reprimanded and held him in contempt.

“Here, the contested comments and rulings by [Weston] were precipitated by the unprofessional, boorish, and, at times contemptuous conduct of the plaintiffs' attorney, [and] were an appropriate attempt to clarify the testimony and facilitate the progress of the trial, or occurred outside the presence of the jury,” the justices wrote, citing in part McGuire v. McGuire, 93 AD3d 701, 703-704 and Bielicki v. T.J. Bentey, 267 AD2d 266, 267.

The justices also wrote that Weston “did not unduly interfere with the presentation of the case or indicate any partiality or bias.”

Ginsberg could not be reached for comment.

Karen Hauss, a partner at VaslasLepowskyHauss & Danke on Staten Island, who helped represent the defendants and handle the appeal, declined to comment on Thursday.