It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by David Colvin (plaintiff) in a motor vehicle accident. Supreme Court properly denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint. Defendants met their initial burden by establishing as a matter of law that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of the permanent consequential limitation of use, the significant limitation of use, and the 90/180 categories of serious injury ( see Chunn v. Carman, 8 AD3d 745, 746; Dongelewic v. Marcus, 6 AD3d 943; Zeigler v. Ramadhan, 5 AD3d 1080, 1082). However, plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact with regard to whether plaintiff sustained accident-related injuries qualifying under those categories of serious injury ( see Chunn, 8 AD3d at 746-747; Green v. Ross, 6 AD3d 1199, 1200; Stokes v. Brown, 2 AD3d 1373, 1374-1375). We further conclude that there is a triable issue of fact with regard to whether, as a result of the accident, plaintiffs sustained economic loss in excess of basic economic loss, for which loss plaintiffs may recover without proof of serious injury ( see Montgomery v. Daniels, 38 NY2d 41, 47-48; Barnes v. Kociszewski, 4 AD3d 824, 825; Tortorello v. Landi, 136 AD2d 545, 545-546; see also Insurance Law § 5104 [a]).