DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the "third cause of action" to recover damages for property damage, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit any medical proof that was contemporaneous with the accident showing any initial range of motion restrictions in his cervical spine (see Lanza v. Carlick, 279 A.D.2d 613, 614; Passarelle v. Burger, 278 A.D.2d 294; Jimenez v. Kambli, 272 A.D.2d 581). Furthermore, the plaintiff's expert failed to indicate his awareness that the plaintiff was suffering from arthritic changes in his spine, and therefore, his finding that the plaintiff's current restriction of motion was causally related to the subject accident was mere speculation (see Ginty v. MacNamara, 300 A.D.2d 624 [2d Dept, Dec. 30, 2002]; Narducci v. McRae, 298 A.D.2d 443; Kallicharan v. Sooknanan, 282 A.D.2d 573, 574). Moreover, the plaintiff and his expert failed to explain a significant gap in treatment (see Crespo v. Kramer, 295 A.D.2d 467; Gorbas v. Dowgiallo, 287 A.D.2d 690; Mejia v. Thom, 280 A.D.2d 528).
However, the "third cause of action" to recover damages for property damage should not have been summarily dismissed (see McCauley v. Ross, 298 A.D.2d 506; Yaraghi v. Zeller, 286 A.D.2d 765).
FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, FRIEDMANN, TOWNES and MASTRO, JJ., concur.