The action was brought by plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of all appellants. The jury rendered a verdict against all appellants and defendants, Carnright, have not appealed. On October 11, 1949, the plaintiff was a passenger in a car which came into collision with a tractor-trailer owned by appellant, Oswego Stevedoring Trucking Co., Inc., which was operated by appellant, Robert W. Truesdale. The appellant, Ralph Truesdale, was also operating a tractor-trailer owned by the same corporation. All these vehicles were proceeding northerly on Route 9W, a three-lane highway, at or near the southerly end of the village of Saugerties. There is evidence from which the jury could have found that appellants Truesdale negligently parked their tractor-trailers on the highway which caused a collision with the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger, as a result of which plaintiff sustained very serious personal injuries. There is evidence on which the jury could find that defendants Carnright were also negligent. In response to the additional instructions sought by the jury the Judge charged them appellants were negligent if violation of village ordinances was a proximate cause of the accident. Each of the two village ordinances then referred to, however, was substantially a restatement of general statutes, one requiring parking close to the "curb" and the other requiring safe and prudent driving and prohibiting interference with use of streets (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 86, subd 5; § 58). As to acts prohibited by State law the instructions were correct. Counsel was not allowed to request additional instructions at this point, and whether this was harmful depends on what he wanted to request. From his statement made at the trial and on appeal here it is clear he wanted to have the jury told the difference in the rule applying to violation of a statute and the violation of a village ordinance. In dealing with these two ordinances, which insofar as they have pertinency to this case re-enact State laws, the difference had no importance to the jury. The verdict in plaintiff's favor was $75,000. Appellants contend that this is excessive. In view of the very serious injuries which plaintiff sustained, we may not say that the recovery is too large. Only questions of fact are involved. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.