Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
Although the order appealed from was subsumed within the final judgment (CPLR 5501 [a]), in the exercise of our discretion we treat the appeal as taken from the judgment ( see, CPLR 5520 [c]; Chin v. Kaplan, 280 A.D.2d 892). We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict on the issue of proximate cause at the close of proof. Both plaintiff's medical expert and defendants' medical expert concluded that plaintiff sustained a shoulder injury as a result of the automobile accident at issue, and thus there was no rational process by which a jury could have found that there was no proximate cause ( see, Clemente v. Impastato, 274 A.D.2d 771, 773; see also, Sheehan v. City of New York, 40 N.Y.2d 496, 502; Miecznikowski v Robida, 278 A.D.2d 793, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 709; Gusek v Compass Transp. Corp., 266 A.D.2d 923; cf., Cross v. Finch Pruyn Co., 281 A.D.2d 836).