BELMONT v. PALM BEACH CLUB, INC

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant's request for a missing witness charge with respect to plaintiff's treating neurologist. It is apparent that any testimony that the neurologist might have been expected to give was already before the jury through medical reports and other expert testimony. Thus, that testimony would have been cumulative ( see, Austin v. Knowlton, 234 A.D.2d 918; Butts v. Braun, 204 A.D.2d 1069).

We reject defendant's contention that the jury's award for past and future pain and suffering is excessive. The award does not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation ( see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Harvey v. Mazal Am. Partners, 79 N.Y.2d 218, 225).