In this malpractice action, the trial court, in response to the jury request for a supplemental instruction on legal malpractice, reread the malpractice charge originally given without however, rereading those portions as pertained to a doctor's deviation from a drug manufacturer's recommendations. We agree with the trial court that because plaintiff did not object to the supplemental instruction before the jury resumed its deliberations, the issue is not preserved for review (CPLR 4110-b; De Long v County of Erie, 60 N.Y.2d 296, 306). We decline to exercise our discretion and consider plaintiff's claim in the interest of justice (see, Rodriguez v Cato, 63 A.D.2d 922), the omission being of insufficient magnitude to constitute fundamental error where it was part of the court's original charge.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.