Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendant 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 motor vehicle accident ( see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; see also Kearse v. New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The submissions of the plaintiff's treating physician and neurologist, as well as his examining orthopedist, were not based upon recent examinations ( see Murray v. Hartford, 23 AD3d 629; Farozes v. Kamran, 22 AD3d 458; Batista v. Olivo, 17 AD3d 494 ; Constantinou v. Surinder, 8 AD3d 323; Kauderer v. Penta, 261 AD2d 365). The magnetic resonance images of the plaintiff's cervical and lumbar spine which showed bulging discs, did not, alone, establish a serious injury ( see Kearse v. New York City Tr. Auth., supra; Diaz v. Turner, 306 AD2d 241; see also Hernandez v. Taub, 19 AD3d 368). The mere existence of a bulging or herniated disc is not 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 Kearse v. New York City Tr. Auth., supra; Diaz v. Turner, supra; see also Pommells v. Perez, 4 NY3d 566). Therefore, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action.