Opinion
Argued April 17, 2001.
May 7, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), entered December 3, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.
Charles Berkman (Ephrem Wertenteil, New York, N.Y. of counsel), for appellants.
Curtis, Vasile, Levine McElhenny, Merrick, N.Y. (Joseph Laird, Jr., and Marianne Arcieri of counsel), for respondents.
Before: RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY and TOWNES, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The trial court properly allowed the defense witness to testify. Despite the defendants' failure to provide his address, there is no indication that they willfully failed to comply with the ordered disclosure, and the plaintiffs were aware of the identity of the witness well before trial (see, Malcolm v. Darling, 233 A.D.2d 425, 426; DeJesus v. Finnegan, 137 A.D.2d 649, 650; Bermudez v. Laminates Unlimited, 134 A.D.2d 314, 315). The trial court also properly charged the jury on the emergency doctrine. A reasonable view of the trial evidence warranted the charge (see, Rivera v. New York City Tr. Auth., 77 N.Y.2d 322, 326-328; Fuller v. Brady, 242 A.D.2d 522; Donaldson v. Kilgore, 187 A.D.2d 1018; see also, Caristo v. Sanzone, N.Y.2d [Apr. 3, 2001]).