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 Huber, 161 AD2d 629). In any event, the jury verdict finding that the defendant driver was negligent but that his negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident was not inconsistent with the evidence elicited at trial ( see, Gaston v Vicio Realty Co., 215 AD2d 174; Faustin v Aquatero, 201 AD2d 453; Barone v City of Mount Vernon, 170 AD2d 557). In addition, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129; see also, Pomaro v McKeon, 228 AD2d 572; Moskowitz v Israel, 209 AD2d 676; Patti v Fenimore, 181 AD2d 869; CPLR 4404).