Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Defendants submitted, inter alia, affirmed reports from a radiologist, who reviewed plaintiff's MRI films, and found preexisting degenerative disease in plaintiffs knees and spine that was consistent with her age and weight ( see Lemos v Giacomo Mgt., Inc., 82 AD3d 602.]; Amamedi v Archibala, 70 AD3d 449, lv denied 15 NY3d 713). Plaintiffs radiologist and treating physician also noted findings of degenerative disease.
In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as she did not present evidence rebutting the asserted lack of causation ( see Valentin v Pomilla, 59 AD3d 184, 186). The statement by plaintiffs treating physician that plaintiffs injuries were caused by the accident was conclusory and insufficient to defeat the motion ( see Ortiz v Ash Leasing, Inc., 63 AD3d 556, 557). Nor did plaintiff raise a triable issue of fact with respect to her 90/180-day claim in the absence of evidence that her injuries were related to the accident ( see Reyes v Esquilin, 54 AD3d 615).