Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendants and affording them the benefit of every reasonable inference (see Esposito v Wright, 28 A.D.3d 1142, 1143 [4th Dept 2006]), we conclude that plaintiffs failed to meet their initial burden on the motion (see Spence v Kitchens, 210 A.D.3d 1416, 1418-1419 [4th Dept 2022]; Murray v Sminkey, 200 A.D.3d 1705, 1706-1707 [4th Dept 2021]; Fayson v Rent-A-Center E., Inc., 166 A.D.3d 1569, 1569-1570 [4th Dept 2018]). Plaintiffs submitted plaintiff's deposition testimony and a police accident report supporting the conclusion that plaintiff's vehicle merged onto I-90 eastbound from the on-ramp and continued traveling in the rightmost lane at the speed limit of 55 miles per hour in a nonnegligent manner, at which point defendant's truck was initially behind plaintiff's vehicle, in the next lane over, moving at a slightly faster pace (i.e., in excess of the speed limit), before it arrived at a position such that, when defendant attempted to change lanes, the front of defendant's truck struck the front bumper and driver's door of plaintiff's vehicle (see Brown v Askew, 202 A.D.3d 1501, 1502-1503 [4th Dept 2022]).