The moving defendants submitted, inter alia, dashcam footage of this nighttime accident from Bartolomei's perspective, which indicated that his view of the area surrounding the stopped vehicle that he passed on the right was partially obscured (see Vigdorchik v Vigdorchik, 209 A.D.3d 923, 924). The moving defendants therefore failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether Bartolomei exercised reasonable care under the conditions presented, including, among other things, whether he should have stopped or at least lowered the rate of speed of his vehicle before attempting to pass the stopped vehicle, regardless of whether he had the right-of-way as compared to Rashid (see Miller v County of Suffolk, 163 A.D.3d 954, 956-957; Kadashev v Medina, 134 A.D.3d 767, 767-768; Canales v Arichabala, 123 A.D.3d 869, 870; Espiritu v Shuttle Express Coach, Inc., 115 A.D.3d 787, 789; cf. Moreno v Gomez, 58 A.D.3d 611, 612). To the extent the moving defendants assert that Bartolomei exercised reasonable care simply because he was traveling at or under the speed limit, their contention is without merit (see e.g. Ballentine v Perrone, 179 A.D.3d 993, 993-995).