Appeal by defendants from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (E. Prus, J.), dated June 27, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

The medical evidence submitted by defendants in support of their motion for summary judgment made out a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Defendants' medical experts stated that plaintiff had cervical and lumbar strains and that the herniated disc
and bulging discs were not causally related to the accident. The burden, therefore, shifted to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact that he sustained a serious injury (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]).

In the case at bar, the plaintiff successfully opposed the motion by presenting evidence that he suffered a serious injury. The affidavit of plaintiff's treating chiropractor described the extent or degree of physical limitation by designating numeric percentages of plaintiff's loss of range of motion of his cervical and lumbar spines that he suffered as a result of the accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350 [2002]).
Decision Date: June 30, 2004