Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Having failed to take exception to the court's charge on the ground that it was unconstitutional insofar as it gave the jury unlimited discretion in determining the amount of punitive damages, the defendants' contention in this regard is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPLR 4110-b; De Long v County of Erie, 60 N.Y.2d 296; Morrissey v. City of New York, 221 A.D.2d 607; see also, Figueroa v. Waldbaum's Inc., 222 A.D.2d 483). In any event, the jury was properly instructed on the assessment of punitive damages (see, Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v Haslip, 499 U.S. 1; PJI 2:278). Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the punitive award was not excessive inasmuch as it "bear[s] some reasonable relation to the harm done and the flagrancy of the conduct causing it" (Rupert v Sellers, 48 A.D.2d 265, 269; see, Suffolk Sports Ctr. v. Belli Constr. Corp., 212 A.D.2d 241).
The defendants' remaining contentions lack merit.
Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.