The court properly denied appellants' motion for summary judgment since questions of fact exist respecting the applicability of the emergency doctrine, including whether the actions of defendant-appellant Rajwid in quickly moving his vehicle into the left lane were reasonable, how long the vehicle operated by Rajwid was in the left lane before hitting plaintiff's vehicle and whether Rajwid should have seen plaintiff's stopped vehicle in time to avoid the collision (see Rivera v. New York City Tr. Auth., 77 N.Y.2d 322; and see Caristo v. Sanzone, 96 N.Y.2d 172;Quiles v. Green, 291 A.D.2d 345).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.