DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that, after the plaintiff stopped her vehicle at the double-yellow lines dividing the two-way road with the intent of entering a shopping center driveway on the other side, she made a left turn directly into the path of oncoming traffic. The plaintiff was negligent in admittedly failing to see the defendants' vehicle approaching from the opposite direction and in crossing the path of the defendants' vehicle when it was hazardous to do so ( see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141). This evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the defendant driver was not negligent as a matter of law in the occurrence of the accident ( see Meretskaya v. Logozzo, 2 A.D.3d 599; Casaregola v. Farkouh, 1 A.D.3d 306; Rieman v. Smith, 302 A.D.2d 510; Russo v. Scibetti, 298 A.D.2d 514; Szczotka v. Adler, 291 A.D.2d 444).
In opposition to the defendants' prima facie showing, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver was comparatively negligent, inter alia, in allegedly failing to brake or otherwise avoid the collision ( see Rieman v. Smith, supra; Szczotka v. Adler, supra; Agin v. Rehfeldt, 284 A.D.2d 352; Borst v. Sunnydale Farms, 258 A.D.2d 488).
SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, ADAMS, RIVERA and LIFSON, JJ., concur.