The opinion
Judgment reversed upon the law, and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. In our opinion, the granting of a nonsuit was erroneous. The case of Martin v. Herzog ( 228 N. Y. 164 ) is distinguishable from the case at bar. The only question determined in that ease was that.a charge that the absence of light upon a vehicle was only some evidence of negligence and a refusal to charge that such absence of lights was “ prima facie evidence of negligence ” was error. The Court of Appeals did not determine that the absence of lights, in violation of the statute, was under all circumstances negligence as a matter of law. The question as to whether the absence of light on plaintiff’s bicycle was a proximate cause of the injury, in view of the circumstances disclosed by the evidence, was a question for the jury. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Seeger and Cars-well, JJ., concur.