DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondents Eileen M. Holtz and William J. Holtz, Jr.
Based on the affirmations of their examining physicians and the deposition testimony of the plaintiffs Ralph Ibragimov and Roman Aminov, the defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiffs Ibragimov and Aminov did not sustain serious injuries 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 N.Y.2d 345; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). The only report by the physician for the plaintiffs Ibragimov and Aminov that was in admissible form failed to establish that the identified limitations in movement of 10 to 15% and 15% for the plaintiffs Aminov and Ibragimov, respectively, were of a significant nature ( see Trotter v. Hart, 285 A.D.2d 772, 773; Cabri v. Myung-Soo Park, 260 A.D.2d 525, 526; Williams v. Ciaramella, 250 A.D.2d 763; Medina v. Zalmen Reis Assocs., 239 A.D.2d 394, 395; Waldman v. Dong Kook Chang, 175 A.D.2d 204).
Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to submit any competent medical evidence to support the claim that Ibragimov and Aminov were unable to perform substantially all of their daily activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days immediately following the subject accident as a result of the accident ( see Sainte-Aime v. Ho, 274 A.D.2d 569, 570; Jackson v. New York City Tr. Auth., 273 A.D.2d 200; Greene v. Miranda, 272 A.D.2d 441, 442; Arshad v. Gomer, 268 A.D.2d 450; Bennett v. Reed, 263 A.D.2d 800, 801; DiNunzio v. County of Suffolk, 256 A.D.2d 498, 499).
Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment in their favor dismissing the complaint.
ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, SCHMIDT, COZIER and SKELOS, JJ., concur.