DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
In support of his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendant relied upon a magnetic resonance imaging report of the plaintiff's cervical spine which showed bulging discs at all but two levels. A bulging disc may constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Hussein v. Littman, 287 A.D.2d 543; Hyacinthe v. U-Haul Co., 278 A.D.2d 369). The defendant failed to demonstrate that the multiple bulging discs were not causally related to the subject accident or that they did not cause the permanent consequential limitation of motion in the use of a body organ or member as claimed by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Woods-Smith v. Tighe, 291 A.D.2d 399; Derival v. New York City Tr. Auth., 289 A.D.2d 281; Hussein v. Littman, supra; Chaplin v. Taylor, 273 A.D.2d 188). Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider whether the plaintiff's papers in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Chaplin v. Taylor, supra; Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, 226 A.D.2d 437, 438).
PRUDENTI, P.J., S. MILLER, McGINITY and CRANE, JJ., concur.