Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, we find that the jury verdict was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 A.D.2d 129).
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in precluding one of the plaintiff's witnesses from testifying, since the plaintiff did not notify the defendant of this witness until the middle of the trial and the defendant had no prior knowledge of this witness (cf., Burton v New York City Hous. Auth., 191 A.D.2d 669; Guillen v New York City Tr. Auth., 192 A.D.2d 506, 508; DeJesus v Finnegan, 137 A.D.2d 649). Mangano, P.J., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.