Opinion
July 27, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
Contrary to the appellants' contention, the jury's inconsistent responses to the interrogatories with regard to third-party defendant Staff Die Cutting Co., Inc. and the appellant Luis Chico do not require reversal as to that portion of the judgment which is in favor of the defendant third-party Brandtjen Kluge (see, e.g., Leal v. Simon, 147 A.D.2d 198). There is ample evidence in the record to support the jury's determination that the press manufactured by Brandtjen Kluge was not defective and that Brandtjen Kluge provided adequate warnings (see, Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493; Thomas v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 180 A.D.2d 491).
The plaintiffs' claims that the cumulative effect of the arguments and remarks of counsel for Brandtjen Kluge deprived them of a fair trial are unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, are without merit (see, Klein v. Academy of Model Aeronautics, 246 A.D.2d 629; Bacigalupo v. Healthshield, Inc., 231 A.D.2d 538; Smith v. City of New York, 217 A.D.2d 423; Torrado v. Lutheran Med. Ctr., 198 A.D.2d 346; Kamen v. City of New York, 169 A.D.2d 705). Further, the Supreme Court properly precluded the appellants' counsel from commenting during summation about a videotape which was not admitted into evidence.
In light of the statement in the appellants' brief that their remaining contention should be considered only if the action is reinstated insofar as asserted against Brandtjen Kluge, and our conclusion that the action should not be so reinstated, the appellants' remaining, contention has not been addressed.
Sullivan, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.