Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance is without merit. The granting or refusing of a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and in absence of an abuse of discretion will be upheld on appellate review (see, Michaels v Dalimonte, 121 A.D.2d 370). Under the circumstances of this case, there is no basis to disturb the trial court's exercise of discretion.
The defendant's claim that the trial court erred in excluding from evidence the door involved in the incident is likewise without merit. The admission or exclusion of real or demonstrative evidence also rests largely within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Wesler v Kassl, 109 A.D.2d 740). Based on the facts before us, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion here.
Contrary to the defendant's assertions, the defendant was not prejudiced by any perceived noncompliance with the medical report exchange rules. Therefore, the court did not err in permitting the plaintiffs' doctor to testify (see, e.g., Markey v Eiseman, 114 A.D.2d 887). Moreover, the court did not err in refusing to give a missing witness charge with respect to the plaintiff Mitchell Klombers' former physician since it was not demonstrated that he was within the plaintiffs' control (see, Pagan v Ramirez, 80 A.D.2d 848). Nor was a missing witness charge warranted as to Mitchell Klombers' other treating physician, since that physician's testimony would have been substantially cumulative (see, Getlin v St. Vincent's Hosp. Med. Center, 117 A.D.2d 707).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Weinstein, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.