Plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), dated October 21, 2004, as granted defendants' cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

PER CURIAM:

Order (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), dated October 21, 2004, reversed, with $10 costs, motions denied and the complaint is reinstated.

Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Defendants' examining physicians found that plaintiff continued to have significant restrictions in motion, evidenced by range-of-motion calculations, approximately nine years after the accident. These findings alone raise an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff suffered a significant limitation of a body function or system, and refute the physicians' statements that plaintiff's examination revealed no significant limitation or disability (see Servones v. Toribio, 20 AD3d 330 [2005]).

Nor were the reports of defendants' physicians, based on the examinations conducted nine years after the accident and addressed to plaintiff's condition as of the time of the examination, sufficient to establish prima facie that plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury by reason of having been incapacitated from performing substantially all of her customary and daily activities for 90 of the 180 days following the accident (see Toussaint v. Claudio, 23 AD3d 268 [2005]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: April 19, 2006