Ordered that the order reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured while riding a bicycle when he entered an intersection after stopping at a stop sign and collided with a motor vehicle driven by the defendant. The defendant's entrance into the intersection was not controlled by a stop sign or any other traffic control signal or device. Further, the defendant was proceeding at a speed of approximately 10 to 15 miles per hour.
A person riding a bicycle on a roadway is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle ( see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1231). The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the plaintiff failed to obey the directives contained in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) and § 1172 (a) when he proceeded into the intersection and failed to yield the right-of-way to the defendant's vehicle ( see Desouki v Keeler, 62 AD3d 934; Trzepacz v Jam, 11 AD3d 531). Moreover, the defendant, who had the right-of-way, was entitled to anticipate that the plaintiff would obey the traffic laws requiring him to yield ( see Rosenberg v Kotsek, 41 AD3d 573; Trzepacz v Jara, 11 AD3d 531). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.