NASIRUDIN v. HARRY

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the deposition testimony of the defendant Khomalram Prabhudayal, which was submitted on the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew, established that Prabhudayal violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142(a) by failing to yield the right of way to the vehicle driven by the defendant Lee E. Holden. The Supreme Court, finding that some of Prabhudayal's testimony was incredible as a matter of law, correctly determined that, in any event, the testimony was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to Holden's negligence in the happening of the accident ( see Szczotka v. Adler, 291 A.D.2d 444; Batal v. Associated Univs., 293 A.D.2d 558; Sonaike v. Jenious, 285 A.D.2d 457; Parisi v. Mitchell, 280 A.D.2d 589; Bolta v. Lohan, 242 A.D.2d 356).

In light of our determination, the parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or have been rendered academic.

SANTUCCI, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO and MASTRO, JJ., concur.