Opinion
April 19, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, under the facts of this case, the trial court did not err in refusing his request to charge the jury on the provisions of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1126 (a) ( see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1120 [a] [2], [3]; cf., Baldwin v. Degenhardt, 189 A.D.2d 941, revd on dissenting mem at the App. Div. 82 N.Y.2d 867). Even if the jury found that the defendant had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1126 (a), no reasonable view of the evidence could support the conclusion that such violation was a proximate cause of the accident ( see, Cranston v. Oxford Resources Corp., 173 A.D.2d 757, 758-759; Koperda v. Town of Whitestown, 224 A.D.2d 944, 945).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is not preserved for appellate review ( see, Chazon v. Parkway Med. Group, 168 A.D.2d 660).
Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.