CAMILO v. FORLINI

Plaintiff's cross motion was properly denied in light of factual questions precluding summary adjudication of the threshold issue as to whether plaintiff sustained serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Maldonado v. DePalo, 277 A.D.2d 21, 22). Plaintiff demonstrated a triable issue of fact with an affidavit that included her medical expert's "designation of a numeric percentage of a plaintiff's loss of range of motion" (see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345, 350). We have considered the remaining arguments of both sides for summary judgment and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.