ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law — 5102(d) (see, Mendola v. Demetres, 212 A.D.2d 515). Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, Coscia v. 938 Trading Corp., 283 A.D.2d 538; Osada v. Taub, 259 A.D.2d 473; Mastromonica v. Conklin, 246 A.D.2d 581; Thomas v. Joyner, 237 A.D.2d 347). RITTER, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, FRIEDMANN, FEUERSTEIN and CRANE, JJ., concur.

The various medical opinions expressed by the plaintiff's treating doctors were supported by their respective physical examinations of the plaintiff and the objective physical tests which they each performed on the plaintiff (see, Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79, 84). Accordingly, the defendants' motion papers failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident (see, Thomas v. Joyner, 237 A.D.2d 347; Mendola v. Demetres, 212 A.D.2d 515). In light of our determination we need not reach the appellants' remaining contention.

The defendant failed to adequately demonstrate that the herniation was not causally related to the subject accident. Accordingly, the defendant failed to make a prima facie case for judgment as a matter of law, and the Supreme Court should have denied the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Thomas v. Joyner, 237 A.D.2d 347; Mendola v. Demetres, 212 A.D.2d 5 15).

In support of their motions for summary judgment, the defendants submitted, inter alia, a report prepared by the plaintiff's radiologist which stated that a magnetic resonance image taken of the plaintiff's lumbar spine four days after the accident revealed "[d]esiccation * * * at the L5-S1 level" and "[b]ulging to the L5-S1 intervertebral disc". They further submitted the medical reports of the plaintiff's own treating orthopedist which specified the degree of limitation in the range of motion of the plaintiff's lumbar and cervical spines and asserted that these injuries are "causally related" to the subject accident and are permanent. Accordingly, the defendants' respective motion papers failed to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff's injuries were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see, Moreno v. Delcid, 262 A.D.2d 464; [2d Dept., June 14, 1999]; Faruque v. Ponce, 259 A.D.2d 464; [2d Dept., Mar. 1, 1999];Rosmarin v. Lamontanaro, 238 A.D.2d 567; Thomas v. Joyner, 237 A.D.2d 347). MANGANO, P.J., RITTER, JOY, McGINITY, and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs. In support of their motions for summary judgment, the appellants submitted, inter alia, reports prepared by the respondent's radiologist which stated that magnetic resonance images taken of the respondent's cervical and lumbar spines approximately two months after the accident revealed the existence of bulging discs at C3-4 and L5-S1. Accordingly, the appellants' respective motion papers failed to establish a prima facie case that the respondent's injuries were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) ( see, Thomas v. Joyner, 237 A.D.2d 347; Rosmarin v. Lamontanaro, 238 A.D.2d 567; Flanagan v. Hoeg, 212 A.D.2d 756). Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.