Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of establishing 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). In support of their motion, the defendants relied upon, inter alia, the affirmed medical report of their examining orthopedic surgeon in which he noted the existence of a significant limitation in the plaintiffs left knee range of motion ( see Hurtte v Budget Roadside Care, 54 AD3d 362; Jenkins v Miled Hacking Corp., 43 AD3d 393; Bentivegna v Stein, 42 AD3d 555; Zamaniyan v Vrabeck, 41 AD3d 472). Under the circumstances, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers ( see Hurtte v Budget Roadside Care, 54 AD3d 362; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538).