ERVIN v. HELFANT

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants submitted evidence that the plaintiff was suffering from bulging discs and loss of range of motion in his cervical and lumbosacral spine. The defendants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff's injuries were not causally related to the subject accident, or that they were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Franca v. Parisi, 298 A.D.2d 554; Alexander v. Felago, 297 A.D.2d 762, 764; Volozhinets v. DeHaven, 286 A.D.2d 437). 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 Chaplin v. Taylor, 273 A.D.2d 188; Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, 226 A.D.2d 437).

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, H. MILLER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.