Here, defendant has failed to establish, prima facie, that plaintiff Guervil did not suffer a significant limitation of use to his cervical and lumbar spine and right shoulder under NYIL ยง 5102(d). Indeed, defendant submitted the medical report of his examining orthopedist, Dr. Thompson, who performed an objective range of motion test on plaintiff Guervil using a goniometer on December 10, 2019 and found significant limitations in his cervical and lumbar spine and right shoulder (see, Def. Exh. C; Zahoudanis v United Parcel Serv. Gen. Servs. Co., 192 A.D.3d 949, 950 [2d Dept 2021]; Singleton v F &R Royal, Inc., 166 A.D.3d 837, 838 [2d Dept 2018]). Similarly, defendant's submission of Dr. Lerner's medical report is insufficient to satisfy his prima facie burden as Dr. Lerner's opinion that there is "no causal relationship" between plaintiff Guervil's MRI findings and the alleged accident is conclusory and speculative (see, id; Holiday v United Steel Prod., Inc., 139 A.D.3d 804, 805 [2d Dept 2016]; Patterson, 112 A.D.3d at 683, supra; Def. Exh. D).
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 [