Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Sandra Gochnour-DeBernardo on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) is granted.
The defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Sandra Gochnour-DeBernardo (hereinafter 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). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. While the plaintiff's treating physician indicated, in his affirmation, that he found a limited range of motion in her cervical and lumbar spine when he examined the plaintiff shortly after the accident, he failed to provide any quantified findings to support his assertions ( see Fiorillo v Arriaza, 52 AD3d 465, 466; Duke v Saurelis, 41 AD3d 770, 771). Moreover, although the physician stated that he had observed bulging discs in the magnetic resonance imaging films and report of the plaintiff's spine, the mere existence of a bulging disc is not conclusive evidence of a serious injury in the absence of objective evidence of the extent of the alleged physical limitations resulting from the disc injury and its duration ( see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 574; Sealy v Riteway-1, Inc., 54 AD3d 1018; Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45, 50). Finally, in the absence of any competent medical evidence, the plaintiff's self-serving affidavit was insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a serious injury ( see Duke v Saurelis, 41 AD3d 770).
[ See 2007 NY Slip Op 33531(U).]