Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The appellant made a prima facie 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; Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45, 49-50). In opposition, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, affirmations from one of his treating physicians, his treating orthopedic surgeon, and a radiologist. These submissions raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury to the cervical and/or lumbar regions of his spine as a result of the subject accident under the permanent consequential limitation of use category and/or the significant limitation of use category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) ( see Wagenstein v Haoli, 64 AD3d 584; Su Gil Yun v Barber, 63 AD3d 1140; Pearson v Guapisaca, 61 AD3d 833; Williams v Clark, 54 AD3d 942; Casey v Mas Transp., Inc., 48 AD3d 610; Acosta v Rubin, 2 AD3d 657).
Contrary to the appellant's contention on appeal, the plaintiff, via his submissions in opposition, addressed and refuted the findings of the appellant's radiologist concerning the issue of degeneration.