DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see, Turchuk v. Town of Wallkill, 255 A.D.2d 576). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that she sustained a serious injury (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff's doctor failed to set forth what objective tests, if any, were used to examine the plaintiff (see, Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79), and failed to specify the degree of the plaintiff's limitation of motion (see, Tabacco v. Kasten, 229 A.D.2d 526; Ahmed v. Yoo, 255 A.D.2d 345). In addition, the doctor did not explain the almost 2 1/2-year gap in treatment between the accident and the most recent medical exam (see, Grossman v. Wright, supra).