Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs' expert testimony was properly excluded since the expert's opinion was not based upon facts contained in the record or within his personal knowledge (see, Quinn v Artcraft Constr., 203 A.D.2d 444; Interstate Cigar Co. v Dynaire Corp., 176 A.D.2d 699).
Furthermore, the trial court did not err in failing to charge the jury that an amnesiac plaintiff is held to a lower standard of proof than a plaintiff who could testify to the events (see, Schecter v Klanfer, 28 N.Y.2d 228). Although the injured plaintiff clearly suffers from a memory defect, she was able to testify as to her version of the occurrence and therefore, the Schecter rule does not apply (see, Fitzgibbon v County of Nassau, 182 A.D.2d 670; Jarrett v Madifari, 67 A.D.2d 396).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.