Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A driver is not required to anticipate that an automobile traveling in the opposite direction will cross over into oncoming traffic ( see, Koch v. Levenson, 225 A.D.2d 592; Williams v. Econ, 221 A.D.2d 429; Griefer v. Schneider, 215 A.D.2d 354). Accordingly, a driver confronted with such a sudden emergency situation is under no obligation to use his best judgment, and any error in his judgment is generally insufficient to constitute negligence ( see, Williams v. Econ, supra; Wright v. Morozinis, 220 A.D.2d 496; Moller v. Lieber, 156 A.D.2d 434). In the case at bar, it is undisputed that the vehicle in which the plaintiff was a passenger suddenly skidded into the opposite lane of traffic on a rainy morning, and that the defendant Manuel A. Diaz had only about "a second" to react to the oncoming vehicle. Under these circumstances, any possible negligence on the part of the defendant Manuel A. Diaz did not proximately cause the accident ( see, Koch v. Levenson, supra; Williams v. Econ, supra; Moller v Lieber, supra). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.