DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
On her motion for summary judgment, the appellant failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident. While the defendants' examining orthopedist found no objective orthopedic evidence of any causally related residual injuries to the cervical or lumbar spine, he specified certain degrees of limitation of range of motion in the plaintiff's cervical spine. In any event, he failed to make any findings regarding the alleged limitations of range of motion in the plaintiff's lumbar spine and left leg. The appellant's proof failed to objectively establish that the plaintiff suffered no limitation to the range of motion in his spine and leg ( see Black v. Robinson, 305 A.D.2d 438 [2d Dept, May 12, 2003]; Gamberg v. Romeo, 289 A.D.2d 525; Junco v. Ranzi, 288 A.D.2d 440). Since the appellant failed to establish her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers need not be considered ( see Chaplin v. Taylor, 273 A.D.2d 188).
ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN, H. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.