Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Robert D. Kalish, J.), entered March 8, 2006. The order denied defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed without costs.

Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the threshold requirement of suffering a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In support of the motion, defendants' examining physicians submitted affirmations which failed to set forth the objective tests used to determine that the plaintiff did not have any range of motion restrictions (see Tolstocheev v Bajrovic, 28 AD3d 473 [2006]).

In any event, the plaintiff successfully opposed the motion by presenting evidence that he sustained a serious injury. He submitted an affirmation from a physician who presented a qualitative assessment of plaintiff's condition which had an objective basis and compared plaintiff's limitation of motion of his cervical spine to normal function (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350 [2002]; Pesce v Tillotson, 7 AD3d 597 [2004]).

Finally, it is noted that the cessation of treatment was explained by plaintiff who stated in his affidavit in opposition to defendants' motion that he stopped treatment because his benefits ended. This was a sufficient explanation to raise an issue of fact and survive summary judgment (Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566 [2005]; Wadford v Gruz, 35 AD3d 258 [2006]).

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: February 27, 2007