As the party moving for summary judgment, the defendant has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing, through the submission of evidence in admissible form, that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a "serious injury'' within the meaning of Insurance Law ยง 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990 [1992]; Gonzalez v Krumholz, 192 A.D.3d 1086, 141 N.Y.S.3d 715 [2d Dept 2021]). The defendant may satisfy this burden by submitting the plaintiffs deposition testimony and the affirmed medical report of the defendant's own examining physician (see Ocasio v New York City Tr. Auth., 134 A.D.3d 789, 20 N.Y.S.3d 655 [2d Dept 2015]; Pamphile v Bastien, 61 A.D.3d 659, 877 N.Y.S.2d 137 [2d Dept 2009]).
Neither doctor, however, compared his findings to what is normal (see Shirman v Lawal, 69 A.D.3d 838 [2nd Dept 2010]). By not doing so, the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the plaintiffs claim, set forth in the bill of particulars, that he sustained a serious injury to, inter alia, his lumbar spine (see Gonzalez v. Krumholz. 192 A.D.3d 1086 [2nd Dept 2021]). Consequently, the defendants have failed to meet their burden without regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers [Mobley v. J. Foster Phillips Funeral Home, Inc., 178 A.D.3d 916, 917 [2nd Dept 2019], citing Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853 [1985]).
Based upon same, Olivero failed to demonstrate that Kana did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180 day category of the Insurance Law. (see Raphael v City of New York, et al., -A.D.3d-, 2021 WL 5499993 [2d Dept 2021]; Gonzalez v Krumholz, 192 A.D.3d 1086 [2d Dept 2021]; Zahoudanis v United Parcel Service Gen. Servs. Co., 192 A.D.3d 949 [2d Dept 2021]; Ali v Williams, 187 A.D.3d 1107 [2d Dept 2020]; Jong Cheol Yang v Grayline N.Y. Tours, 186 A.D.3d 1501 [2d Dept 2020]; Che Hong Kimv Kossoff, 90 A.D.3d 969 [2d Dept 2011]; Rouach v Betts, 71 A.D.3d 977 [
(See generally Volpetti v Yoon Kap, 28 A.D.3d 750 [2d Dept 2006].) Further, defendants failed to adequately address Sitaram's claims of serious injury under the 90/180 day category. (See Gonzalez v Krumholz, 192 A.D.3d 1086 [2d Dept 2021]; Owens-Stephens v PTM Mgmt. Corp., 191 A.D.3d 691 [2d Dept 2021]; Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 A.D.3d 969 [2d Dept 2011]; Volpetti v Yoon Kap, 28 A.D.3d 750 [2d Dept 2006].)