*554 SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Jenny Mercado appeals from the judgment of the district court entered in favor of defendants following a jury trial. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.

Mercado argues that “[t]he trial judge abused his discretion when he interjected himself into the proceedings because he conducted inappropriate cross-examinations of witnesses as well as disrupted the flow of testimony.” She further argues that the judge’s impatience with her attorney was blatant and extensive to the point of being prejudicial. “In reviewing a challenge to a trial judge’s conduct, we determine not whether the trial judge’s conduct left something to be desired ... but whether the judge’s behavior was so prejudicial that it denied a party a fair, as opposed to a perfect, trial.” Shah v. Pan Am. World Servs., Inc., 148 F.3d 84, 98 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal citation, quotation marks and alterations omitted). Trial judges may appropriately clarify legal and factual issues to minimize possible confusion in the jurors’ minds. Anderson v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 509 F.2d 1119, 1131 (2d Cir. 1974). We have reviewed the transcript of the trial and conclude that Mercado’s contentions lack merit. At all times, the trial judge conducted himself appropriately, interjecting only to clarify witnesses’ statements or to cut off inappropriate testimony. While the trial judge expressed impatience with both attorneys, he did so out of the hearing of the jury and based on his legitimate concern with the attorneys’ performance. See Shah, 148 F.3d at 101 (“In our view, the remarks are indicative not of judicial bias, but rather of the judge’s legitimate concern over the attorney’s performance at trial.”). The trial judge’s behavior did not in any way prejudice Mercado’s case.

Mercado further argues that the trial judge made several erroneous eviden-tiary rulings. This Court reviews eviden-tiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Kelley, 551 F.3d 171, 174-75 (2d Cir. 2009). Mercado contends that the trial judge abused his discretion by allowing Defendants’ Exhibit TTT-3, defendant Robert Sambrato’s telephone records, into evidence because they had not been authenticated by the telephone company. The telephone records, however, were not offered to prove that they were the telephone company’s actual records, but to show that One Beacon Insurance Group had conducted an investigation of Mercado’s allegations that Sambrato had called her at her home. They were therefore properly authenticated by Sambrato’s testimony that they were the records he provided to One Beacon Insurance Group. Mercado’s other allegations with respect to erroneous evidentiary rulings similarly lack merit.

We have considered the remainder of Mercado’s arguments and conclude that they lack merit.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.