As relevant here, "[a] driver who faces a green light has a duty to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians who are lawfully within a crosswalk in accordance with the standard of care imposed by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111(a)(1)" (Lieb v Jacobson, 202 A.D.3d 1072, 1073; see Callahan v Glennon, 193 A.D.3d 1029, 1030). "A driver also has a statutory duty" pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 "to use due care to avoid colliding with pedestrians on the roadway, as well as a common-law duty to see that which he or she should have seen through the proper use of his or her senses" (Lieb v Jacobson, 202 A.D.3d at 1073 [citations, alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Khalil v Garcia-Olea, 222 A.D.3d 853, 854). Relatedly, "[a] pedestrian who has the right of way is entitled to anticipate that motorists will obey the traffic laws that require them to yield" (Huang v Franco, 149 A.D.3d 703, 703).

We consequently disagree with Supreme Court's conclusion that the only permissible inference was that Butler was in the intersection first and, accordingly, had the right-of-way when the collision occurred (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1141, 1142 [a]). Altogether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, questions of fact remain as to whether Butler was comparatively at fault for failing to see what was to be seen, and whether she failed to exercise due care to avoid colliding with plaintiff (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 [a]; Khalil v Garcia-Olea, 222 A.D.3d 853, 854 [2d Dept 2023]; Gonzalez v Gonzales, 212 A.D.3d 716, 717 [2d Dept 2023]; Ellis v Vazquez, 155 A.D.3d 694, 695 [2d Dept 2017]; Brenner v Dixon, 98 A.D.3d 1246, 1248 [4th Dept 2012]; see also Smith v State of New York, 121 A.D.3d 1358, 1359 [3d Dept 2014]). Defendants' motion should therefore have been denied.

Moreover, the alleged speed in which defendant Zhu claims he was driving at the time of the accident contradicts the speed shown in still photographs and video footage, and it exceeds the alleged 25 miles per hour speed limit, which may establish liability on defendants' part (Matias v. Bello, 165 A.D.3d 642, 643 [2d Dep't 2018]). Therefore, defendants' own submissions raise triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant driver failed to see what was there to be seen through the proper use of his senses and failed to exercise due care to avoid the collision (Khalil v. Garcia-Olea, 222 A.D.3d 853, 854-855 [2d Dep't 2023]). Since the defendants did not sustain their prima facie burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it is not necessary to consider the sufficiency of the opposition papers (Winegrad, 64 N.Y.2d at 853).