Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' request for a missing witness charge. Even if the plaintiffs satisfied their initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of medical malpractice, testimony sought from that witness would have been cumulative ( see Gardiner v Wertheimer, 256 AD2d 381; Clements v Lindsey, 237 AD2d 557; Klombers v Lefkowitz, 131 AD2d 815, 816).
The plaintiffs' remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review, as it was not the subject of a timely objection at trial ( see CPLR 4017, 5501 [a] [3]; Saratoga Spa Bath v Beeche Sys. Corp., 230 AD2d 326, 332-333; Pieniewski v Benbenek, 56 AD2d 710; Farhart v Matuljak, 283 App Div 977, 978).