Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for a missing witness charge with respect to a physician who examined the plaintiff on the defendant's behalf. When a doctor who examines the plaintiff on the defendant's behalf does not testify at trial, an inference generally arises that the testimony of such witness would be unfavorable to the defendant unless he demonstrates that the testimony would be merely cumulative, the witness was unavailable or not under his control, or that the witness would address matters not in dispute (see, Arroyo v. City of New York, 171 A.D.2d 541; Levande v Dines, 153 A.D.2d 671; Getlin v. St. Vincent's Hosp. Med. Ctr., 117 A.D.2d 707). "Control" is used in a very broad sense and includes a witness under the party's influence or one whom it may naturally be inferred is of good will to the party (see, Kupfer v. Dalton, 169 A.D.2d 819; Wilson v. Bodian, 130 A.D.2d 221, 234; Chandler v. Flynn, 111 A.D.2d 300). Here, the defendant established that the doctor had a business relationship with the plaintiff's law firm. Under these circumstances, good will should not be inferred between the doctor and the defendant. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the plaintiff's request for a missing witness charge.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions regarding alleged errors in the court's charge and the form of the verdict sheet are unpreserved for appellate review (see, Burke v. Santoro, 172 A.D.2d 579; Goldberg v. Union Hardware Co., 162 A.D.2d 658), and we decline to address them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Thompson, J.P., Balletta, O'Brien and Florio, JJ., concur.