Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs and new trial granted. Memorandum: The trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury that a violation of the State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code (see, 9 NYCRR part 600 et seq.), adopted by the City of Rochester (see, City of Rochester Code § 39-101), could be considered as evidence of negligence (see, Major v Waverly Ogden, 7 N.Y.2d 332, 336). The evidence was sufficient to support a finding by the jury that defendant violated the Code and that the violation was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. Therefore, plaintiff was entitled to the requested charge (see, Heil v Schaefer Brewing Co., 38 N.Y.2d 935, 936; Healy v Rennert, 9 N.Y.2d 202, 211; Lein v Czaplinski, 106 A.D.2d 723, 724).
In view of our decision, we do not address the issues concerning the adequacy of the damage award or the apportionment of liability.