MALDONADO v. YING LI

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury through the affirmations of their examining orthopedist, neurologist, and radiologist ( see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affirmation of the plaintiff's physician failed to cite the objective tests he performed to measure the plaintiff's limitation of motion ( see Jimenez v. Kambli, 272 AD2d 581; Kauderer v. Penta, 261 AD2d 365; Giannakis v. Paschilidou, 212 AD2d 502). Further, the plaintiff's physician failed to address in his affirmation the nearly three-year gap between the end of his medical treatment and subsequent reexamination of the plaintiff ( see Jimenez v. Kambli, supra; Smith v. Askew, 264 AD2d 834). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.