CHERISE v. RAIN

The moving defendants' prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment demonstrated that plaintiff's did not satisfy the serious injury threshold of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Plaintiff's failed to satisfy their evidentiary burden to submit, in opposition to the motion, "objective medical proof of a serious injury causally related to the accident in order to survive summary dismissal" ( Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 574). Although the MRI reports were sufficient to establish the existence of disc bulges and herniations ( Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345), plaintiffs' expert attributed present pain to an unquantified loss of range of motion, and did "not report his personal observations of plaintiff[s] while sitting and standing, or identify the tests, if any, he performed," or compare his observations to "the norm" ( Burke v Torres, 8 AD3d 118, 119; compare Garner v Tong, 27 AD3d 401; see also Gonzalez v Vasquez, 301 AD2d 438). With regard to plaintiff Jackson, the physicians failed to address the degenerative nature of his preexisting condition ( Mullings v Huntwork, 26 AD3d 214; see also Montgomery v Pena, 19 AD3d 288).