Defendants-third party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Francis M. Alessandro, J.), entered April 21, 2006, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

PER CURIAM:
Order (Francis M. Alessandro, J.), entered April 21, 2006, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted, and complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendants' objection to the form of the reports of plaintiff's doctors, raised for the first time on appeal, is unpreserved for appellate review (see Shinn v. Catanzaro, 1 AD3d 195, 198 [2003]). However, on the merits, we find that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained "serious injury" within the meaning of Insurance Law §5102(d). Absent from plaintiff's submission was any competent corroborating proof of the claimed course of treatment or a valid explanation for the cessation of treatment (see Bent v. Jackson, 15 AD3d 45 [2005]; Thompson v. Abbasi, 15 AD3d 95 [2005]).
Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J., dissenting:

I agree with Civil Court that the affidavit of plaintiff's medical expert attesting plaintiff's limited range of spinal motion was sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether [*2]plaintiff sustained a serious injury as a result of the subject accident. The issue to be decided is whether there was a serious injury. The plaintiff's course of treatment or lack thereof is merely some evidence of the seriousness of the injury. It is not dispositive.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: December 29, 2006