DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
This case arises from a two-car collision at an intersection. The street where the defendant was driving had a stop sign, while the street where the injured plaintiff was driving had no traffic control device. The defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1142(a) and 1172(a) when he entered the intersection without yielding the right of way to the plaintiff, "froze" in the intersection, and blocked the plaintiff's only lane of travel. These violations constituted negligence as a matter of law and could not be disregarded by the jury ( see Klein v. Byalik, 1 A.D.3d 399; Batal v. Associated Univs., 293 A.D.2d 558, 559; Botero v. Erraez, 289 A.D.2d 274, 275; Dellavecchia v. Zorros, 231 A.D.2d 549). The plaintiff, as the driver with the right-of-way, was entitled to anticipate that the defendant would obey traffic laws which required him to yield ( see Klein v. Byalik, supra at 400; Batal v. Associated Univs., supra).
On these facts, no fair interpretation of the evidence could have yielded a verdict that the defendant was not negligent, notwithstanding his testimony that the left signal of the plaintiff's vehicle was flashing while it was approaching the intersection ( see Lagana v. Fox, 6 A.D.3d 583; Batal v. Associated Univs., supra).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly set aside the jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and granted a new trial ( see CPLR 4404[a]; Batal v. Associated Univs., supra; Kasna v. Rodriguez, 84 A.D.2d 782).
SANTUCCI, J.P., TOWNES, CRANE and LIFSON, JJ., concur.