Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The respondents' submissions established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaints and all cross claims in Actions No. 1 and 3 insofar as asserted against them ( see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). The respondents demonstrated that William J. Johnston was not negligent in failing to avoid the vehicle driven by the appellant Dina Canceleno as it executed a left turn across the oncoming lanes of traffic in which Johnston was lawfully traveling ( see, Smalley v. McCarthy, 254 A.D.2d 478; Williams v. Econ, 221 A.D.2d 429; Murphy v. Spickler, 224 A.D.2d 814; Fuller v. Blackbird, 211 A.D.2d 886; Moller v. Lieber, 156 A.D.2d 434, 435; Viegas v. Esposito, 135 A.D.2d 708).
Since the appellants' opposing submissions failed to create material questions of fact with respect to Johnston's alleged culpability ( Fuller v. Blackbird, supra; Williams v. Econ, supra; Viegas v. Esposito, supra), the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents' motion.
Bracken, J. P., O'Brien, Thompson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.