Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The orthopedist's affirmation upon which the defendants' motion for summary judgment was predicated assigned a numerical value to the range of motion of the plaintiff's lumbar spine, but failed to compare his findings against the normal range of motion. Accordingly, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment on the issue of whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) ( see Browdame v. Candura, 25 AD3d 747; Paulino v. Dedios, 24 AD3d 741; Kennedy v. Brown, 23 AD3d 625, 626), and the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion ( see Boone v. New York City Tr. Auth., 263 AD2d 463; see generally Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; cf. Kearse v. New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45, 49-50; Meely v. 4 G's Truck Renting Co., Inc., 16 AD3d 26, 29-30).