Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendant Dinesh Kripaliani established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting undisputed proof that the vehicle driven by the defendant Thomas Prisco proceeded into an intersection, which was controlled by a stop sign, and failed to yield the right-of-way to his approaching vehicle in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) ( see Ali v. Tip Top Tows, 304 AD2d 683; Zelaya v. Cappadona, 294 AD2d 431; Breslin v. Rudden, 291 AD2d 471; Szczotka v. Adler, 291 AD2d 444; Bolta v. Lohan, 242 AD2d 356). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. In particular, Prisco's estimate that Kripaliani's vehicle was traveling "[m]aybe, around 50 [miles per hour]" was speculative given that Prisco did not see the vehicle until less than one second before the impact ( see Mora v. Garcia, 3 AD3d 478; Ali v. Tip Top Tows, supra; Breslin v. Rudden, supra; McClelland v. Seery, 261 AD2d 451). Similarly, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding Kripaliani's alleged failure to take evasive action, in light of Kripaliani's deposition testimony that only a "split second" elapsed between the moment he first observed Prisco's vehicle and the collision ( see Lupowitz v. Fogarty, 295 AD2d 576; Le Claire v. Pratt, 270 AD2d 612).