Opinion
December 4, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
There was no evidence adduced at trial that would support a finding that the defendant violated either Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (2) (a) or Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (e). Thus, the trial court's refusal to include those sections in the charge to the jury was proper (see, Hardy v Sicuranza, 133 A.D.2d 138; Gamar v Gamar, 114 A.D.2d 487; Wilmot v City of New York, 73 A.D.2d 201).
The jury's determination that the defendant's negligence was not a proximate cause of the automobile accident was supported by "a fair interpretation of the evidence" (Nicastro v Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 134). Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Hart, JJ., concur.