Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered August 2, 2005, which granting defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

PER CURIAM:

Order (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered August 2, 2005,
affirmed, with $10 costs.

Defendants met their initial burden of proof on the threshold serious injury issue by submitting objective medical evidence in admissible form that plaintiff had full range of spinal motion and no disabilities resulting from
the motor vehicle accident, and that contemporaneous x-rays showed a preexisting degenerative condition (see Insurance Law §5102[d]; Montgomery v Pena, 19 AD3d 288 [2005]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to come forward with the objective proof required to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether her alleged range of motion limitations were caused by the accident (see Toulson v. Young Han Pae, 13 AD3d 317 [2004]). The report of plaintiff's expert did not address the evidence of preexisting degenerative disease, and thus was insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to causation (see Jimenez v. Rojas, 26 AD3d 256 [2006]; Mullings v. Huntwork, 26 AD3d 214 [2006]). Nor did plaintiff present competent evidence to support her 90/180 day claim (see Blackmon v. Dinstuhl, 27 AD3d 241 [2006]).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them lacking in merit.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court. [*2]
Decision Date: October 5, 2006