Defendant Toyota Motor Credit Corp. appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered March 1, 2006, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Per Curiam.

Order (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered March 1, 2006, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed as against defendant-appellant, and upon a search of the record, as against co-defendant Wigfall. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the action.

Defendant met its initial burden of demonstrating that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law §5102(d), by submitting the affirmed reports of medical experts, who upon reviewing plaintiff's medical records and examining her, found normal range of motion and no permanent injury causally related to the vehicular accident. Plaintiff's submissions in opposition were insufficient to raise a triable issue. While plaintiff offered evidence of pain and herniated discs, she failed to submit the requisite contemporaneous quantitative assessment of range of motion limitations based on objective testing (see Thompson v Abbasi, 15 AD3d 95, 98 [2005]). The evidence of range of motion limitations submitted by plaintiff was too remote in time to raise an issue of fact as to whether the limitations were caused by the subject accident. Although co-defendant Wigfall did not file a notice of appeal from the denial of his motion for summary judgment, we search the record and grant summary judgment in his favor since plaintiff cannot meet the threshold for serious injury (see Merritt Hills Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 110-12 [1984]).THIS [*2]CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: March 20, 2008