Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Where a defendant fails to meet its initial burden of establishing a prima facie case, it becomes unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiffs' papers in opposition to the defendant's motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851; Coscia v. 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538; Chaplin v. Taylor, 273 AD2d 188; Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437). In this case, the defendant's experts examined the injured plaintiff and found that he had a full range of motion in his cervical spine. However, neither expert "set forth the objective tests they performed" to support their statement ( Zavala v. DeSantis, 1 AD3d 354, 355; see Black v. Robinson, 305 AD2d 438; Gamberg v. Romeo, 289 AD2d 525; Junco v. Ranzi, 288 AD2d 440). In addition, neither expert tested the range of motion of the injured plaintiff's lumbar spine, and both experts found limitations on straight-leg raising. Thus, the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case, and therefore, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied.