Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) is denied.
The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident ( see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine, and his left knee, under the significant limitation or permanent consequential limitation of use category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident ( see Mela v Gentile, 306 AD2d 388).
The defendants submitted evidence tending to show that the plaintiff sustained injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine as a result of a prior automobile accident. The Supreme Court determined that the conclusion of the plaintiff's treating chiropractor that the plaintiff sustained certain injuries to those regions of his spine as a result of the subject accident was speculative because the chiropractor did not address the plaintiffs alleged injuries from a prior accident ( see Sforza v Big Guy Leasing Corp., 51 AD3d 659, 661; cf. Joseph v A H Livery, 58 AD3d 688, 688-689; Bennett v Genas, 27 AD3d 601, 601-602). However, there is an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff, who testified at his deposition that he "was a healthy man before the [subject] accident," and recounted in an affidavit that he "had no prior injuries to [his] neck [and] back," injured those regions of his spine as a result of the prior accident. Furthermore, the plaintiff alleged that he suffered a tear in the posterior horn of the medial meniscus of his left knee as a result of the subject accident, and there is no evidence tending to show that he sustained an injury to his left knee as a result of the prior accident. Accordingly, under these circumstances, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.