Majority
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered March 15, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against them, dismissed the complaint.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly declined to issue a "missing witness” charge (see, PJI 1:75) notwithstanding the defendants’ failure to present the testimony of a doctor who examined the plaintiff driver on behalf of the defense. The testimony of the uncalled witness would have been "merely cumulative” (Wilson v Bodian, 130 AD2d 221 , 234; Chandler v Flynn, 111 AD2d 300 , 301; see also, DeFreese v Grau, 192 AD2d 1019 ; Levande v Dines, 153 AD2d 671 ).
The plaintiffs’ contention that the jury verdict was inconsistent is not preserved for appellate review (see, Grassi v Kamalian, 226 AD2d 344 ; Barry v Manglass, 55 NY2d 803 ; Strauss v
Cases cited
- Wilson v. Bodian 130 AD2d 221 at 234 p. 557
- Chandler v. Flynn 111 AD2d 300 at 301 p. 557
- DeFreese v. Grau 192 AD2d 1019 p. 557
- Levande v. Dines 153 AD2d 671 p. 557
- Barry v. Manglass 55 NY2d 803 p. 557
- Strauss v. Huber 161 AD2d 629 p. 558
- Gaston v. Viclo Realty Co. 215 AD2d 174 p. 558
- Barone v. City of Mount Vernon 170 AD2d 557 p. 558
- Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, Inc. 45 NY2d 493 p. 558
- Nicastro v. Park 113 AD2d 129 p. 558
- Patti v. Fenimore 181 AD2d 869 p. 558