Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of Robert H. Hurley (defendant) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Where, as here, "defendant establishes that a head-on collision was caused by plaintiff's crossing over into defendant's lane of travel, defendant has established `a complete defense to plaintiff's action'" (Gouchie v. Gill, 198 A.D.2d 862, quoting Eisenbach v. Rogers, 158 A.D.2d 792, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 752). In response, plaintiff was required to submit evidence in admissible form sufficient to create a triable issue of fact whether defendant's negligence was a contributing cause of the accident (see, Fuller v. Blackbird, 211 A.D.2d 886, 887; Gouchie v. Gill, supra). The contention of plaintiff that defendant's "faulty vision", "advanced age" and medical condition were contributing causes of the accident is without basis in the record. The opinion of plaintiff's accident reconstructionist that defendant could have avoided the accident if his automobile had been farther behind the automobile ahead of him is lacking in foundation and fails to raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat defendant's motion for summary judgment (see, Terwilliger v. Dawes, 204 A.D.2d 433, 434; Roman v. Vargas, 182 A.D.2d 543, 544-545; cf., Boyes v. DeLellis, 210 A.D.2d 931).