Opinion
Submitted October 13, 1999
November 15, 1999
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated November 16, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Cheven, Keely Hatzis (Thomas Torto and Lawrence B. Goodman, New York, N.Y. of counsel), for appellants.
Litman Litman, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey E. Litman of counsel), for respondents.
SONDRA MILLER, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff had sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). The affidavit of the injured plaintiff's examining physician submitted in opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment did not provide any information concerning the objective tests he performed in arriving at his conclusions concerning an alleged restriction in the injured plaintiff's range of motion ( see, Kauderer v. Penta, 261 A.D.2d 365 [2d Dept., May 3, 1999]; Lobo v. Singh, 259 A.D.2d 523 [2d Dept., Mar. 8, 1999]; DiNunzio v. County of Suffolk, 256 A.D.2d 498; Russell v. City of Mount Vernon, 256 A.D.2d 454).
S. MILLER, J.P., THOMPSON, KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.