FARINO v. CASSIERE (1999)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), entered March 27, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against him dismissing the complaint.

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, 592 N.Y.S.2d 821, rev'd on dissenting mem. at the App.Div. 82 N.Y.2d 867, 609 N.Y.S.2d 563, 631 N.E.2d 569).   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, 571 N.Y.S.2d 733;  Koperda v. Town of Whitestown, 224 A.D.2d 944, 945, 637 N.Y.S.2d 899).

The plaintiff's remaining contention is not preserved for appellate review (see, Chazon v. Parkway Med. Group, 168 A.D.2d 660, 563 N.Y.S.2d 488).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.