DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
The defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). The affirmed medical reports of the defendants' examining physicians indicated that a magnetic resonance imaging of the plaintiff's cervical spine taken one month after the accident revealed, inter alia, disc herniations and a disc bulge. Notably, the report of the defendants' orthopedist specified the degrees of the range of motion in the plaintiff's cervical spine without comparing these findings to the normal range of motion. Thus, the defendants' proof failed to objectively demonstrate that the plaintiff did not suffer a permanent consequential or significant limitation of use of his cervical spine as a result of the subject accident ( see Jones v. Jacob, A.D.3d [2d Dept, Nov. 17, 2003]; D'Angelo v. Guerra, 307 A.D.2d 306; Ervin v. Helfant, 303 A.D.2d 716; Franca v. Parisi, 298 A.D.2d 554).
Since the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the sufficiency of the papers in opposition need not be considered ( see Junco v. Ranzi, 288 A.D.2d 440).
ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, ADAMS and MASTRO, JJ., concur.