Opinion
January 18, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
On December 31, 1981, Lorraine Raney died at St. Charles Hospital while under the care of the defendants. The plaintiff, the decedent's surviving spouse, commenced an action alleging medical malpractice, and a trial resulted in a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff now appeals, urging that he was prejudiced by the Supreme Court's failure, in marshaling the evidence, to address the testimony of two of the doctors who testified for the plaintiff. We disagree.
The plaintiff has not shown that the charge demonstrated mistrust or bias, or conveyed an impression that the court had an opinion in the matter (see, Altman v. Deepdale Gen. Hosp., 124 A.D.2d 768). We find that the court's charge, as a whole, was neither unbalanced nor prejudicial.
In any event, any prejudice that may have resulted from the claimed inadequacy in the court's review of the evidence was obviated by the court's admonition to the jurors that their own recollections of the testimony were to control (see, Norfleet v New York City Tr. Auth., 124 A.D.2d 715).
Nor is there merit to the plaintiff's further contentions. It was within the trial court's discretion to refuse permission for the plaintiff's attorney to display a chart to the jury during summation (see, Johnston v. Colvin, 145 A.D.2d 846; Hiliuk v Daponte, 100 A.D.2d 612; Carroll v. Roman Catholic Diocese, 26 A.D.2d 552, affd 19 N.Y.2d 658). Furthermore, it was not reversible error to refuse the plaintiff's requested jury instructions on inconsistent statements and circumstantial evidence (see, PJI 1:66, 1:70 [2d ed]).
The remaining contention that certain questions should have been permitted as hypotheticals is unpreserved for appellate review (see, Kulak v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 40 N.Y.2d 140), and, in any event, without merit. Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.