Opinion
May 6, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
In affidavits submitted in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff and his physician, an orthopedist, made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff suffers from a "permanent" 10-degree limitation in the mobility of his neck, which he can move only with pain (see, Lopez v Senatore, 65 N.Y.2d 1017; Bassett v Romano, 126 A.D.2d 693). Both the plaintiff and his orthopedist averred that this pain becomes particularly severe when he uses a computer terminal at his place of employment, with the result that his condition permits him to perform certain ordinary daily functions "only with pain" (Mooney v Ovitt, 100 A.D.2d 702, 703). The results of the plaintiff's nerve conduction velocities test purport to confirm the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy and one of the defendants' physicians acknowledged that the plaintiff's subjective complaints were consistent with that diagnosis (cf., Ottavio v Moore, 141 A.D.2d 806, 807; Fields v Green Bus Lines, 124 A.D.2d 640, 641). Bracken, J.P., Kooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O'Brien, JJ., concur.