Opinion
December 1, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Although the trial court frequently intervened in the trial by questioning witnesses, it did not display any bias toward either counsel. Rather, the trial court-questioned the witnesses to further clarify facts material to the issues in the trial and to expedite the proceedings ( see, Pallotta v. West Bend Co., 166 A.D.2d 637, 639; LaMotta v. City of New York, 130 A.D.2d 627; Gallo v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 112 A.D.2d 345, 348).
The plaintiff's challenges to the court's supplemental charge on proximate cause are unpreserved for appellate review ( see, Scandell v. Salerno, 155 A.D.2d 523; deGast v. Livingstone, 144 A.D.2d 332, 333; Waddle v. Snyder Co., 149 A.D.2d 696, 697). In any event, the charge as a whole sufficiently instructed the jury as to the law ( see, Scandell v. Salerno, supra; Fricker v. New York City Off Track Betting Corp., 213 A.D.2d 590, 591, cert denied 516 U.S. 1114; Dulin v. Mahler, 200 A.D.2d 707, 708).
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the fact that the defendants were found to have been negligent but that their negligence was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries does not render the verdict inconsistent ( see, Schermerhorn v. Warfield, 213 A.D.2d 877, 878; Rubin v. Pecoraro, 141 A.D.2d 525, 526).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Lerner, JJ., concur.