ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants submitted a magnetic resonance imaging (hereinafter MRI) report of the injured plaintiff's right knee revealing a tear of the meniscus. The affirmation of the defendants' own examining physician confirmed that finding, as well as the finding in another MRI of the injured plaintiff's lumbosacral spine revealing multiple bulging and herniated discs. The defendants did not demonstrate that these injuries were not causally related to the accident, or that they were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law — 5102(d). Thus, the defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Chaplin v. Taylor, 273 A.D.2d 188; Langford v. Jewett Transp. Serv., 271 A.D.2d 412; Meyer v. Gallardo, 260 A.D.2d 556; Faruque v. Ponce, 259 A.D.2d 464; Minori v. Hernandez Trucking Co., 239 A.D.2d 322; Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, 226 A.D.2d 437; Flanagan v. Hoeg, 212 A.D.2d 756). Under these circumstances, we need not consider whether the plaintiffs' papers in opposition to the motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Chaplin v. Taylor, supra; Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, supra).