HULL v. SPAGNOLI

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the injured plaintiff failed to yield the right-of-way after stopping at a stop sign controlling traffic in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) ( see Gergis v Miccio, 39 AD3d 468; Laino v Lucchese, 35 AD3d 672; Friedberg v Citiwide Auto Leasing, Inc., 22 AD3d 522; McNamara v Fishkowitz, 18 AD3d 721; Nolan v Mizrahi, 12 AD3d 430). The injured plaintiff was required to "see that which through proper use of her senses she should have seen" ( Bongiovi v Hoffman, 18 AD3d 686, 687 [citation omitted]; see Bolta v Lohan, 242 AD2d 356), and the defendant driver who had the right of way was entitled to anticipate that the injured plaintiff would obey the traffic law requiring her to yield ( see Piatt v Wolman, 29 AD3d 663; Dileo v Barreca, 16 AD3d 366; Rossani v Rana, 8 AD3d 548).

In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver was negligent ( see Hou-Ching Chou v Wong, 34 AD3d 642; McNamara v Fishkowitz, 18 AD3d 721; Ishak v Guzman, 12 AD3d 409).