Opinion
2004-1101 K C.
Decided October 27, 2008.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ellen M. Spodek, J.), entered April 29, 2004. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff Stanley Jean-Philippe.
Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ.
In this action for damages for personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident, defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground, inter alia, that the infant plaintiff, Stanley Jean-Philippe, did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The court below denied the motion on the ground that triable issues of fact exist.
Upon a review of the record, we find that defendants did not satisfy their initial prima facie burden of showing that Stanley Jean-Philippe did not sustain a serious injury as a result of the subject accident ( see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). The affirmed medical reports of defendants' examining physicians failed to specify Stanley Jean-Philippe's degrees of motion for most of the observed movements. The affirmed reports stated that he showed excellent range of motion and that the range of motion of his cervical and lumbar spine was "within normal limits." Since defendants' experts failed to compare any findings to normal ranges of motion, defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Stanley Jean-Philippe should have been denied ( see McKenzie v Redl, 47 AD3d 775; Spektor v Dichy, 34 AD3d 557; Browdame v Candura, 25 AD3d 747; Paulino v Dedios, 24 AD3d 741; Kennedy v Brown, 23 AD3d 625; Baudillo v Pam Car Truck Rental, Inc., 23 AD3d 420) without consideration of whether said plaintiff's opposition papers raised a triable issue of fact ( see Sullivan v Illoge, 50 AD3d 886; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538).
Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.