Opinion
May 10, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In opposition to the defendant's motion, the plaintiff submitted evidence in admissible form which indicated that she sustained objectively measured, specifically quantified limitations of motion of her cervical spine. This was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury ( see, Fitzpatrick v. Spottiswood, 243 A.D.2d 676; Moore v. Tappen, 242 A.D.2d 526; Grullon v. Chang Ok Chu, 240 A.D.2d 367; Wolfram v. Vassilou, 239 A.D.2d 340; Carucci v. Tzimopoulos, 238 A.D.2d 459).
Ritter, J. P., Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.