NOH v. DUFFE

Ordered that the order affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contentions, the defendant established, prima facie, through the affirmed reports of her expert neurologist, orthopedist, and radiologist, as well as the plaintiffs' deposition testimony, that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident ( see Richards v Tyson, 64 AD3d 760; Berson v Rosada Cab Corp., 62 AD3d 636; Byrd v J.R.R. Limo, 61 AD3d 801). The plaintiffs' submissions were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, as the plaintiffs' subjective complaints of pain and limitation of motion were unsubstantiated by verified objective medical findings ( see Dantini v Cuffie, 59 AD3d 490; Villeda v Cassas, 56 AD3d 762; Ramie v Abdul-Massih, 28 AD3d 447; Lagana v Shamsian, 270 AD2d 313).

In light of our determination, it is unnecessary to address the plaintiffs' remaining contention.