VITALE v. LEV EXPRESS CAB CORP

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants initially submitted evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as a matter of law ( see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955; Flanagan v. Hoeg, 212 A.D.2d 756). In response, the plaintiff submitted an affirmation by Dr. Roman Tabakman, based in part on a recent examination, which indicated the degree to which the plaintiff's movement was restricted in her cervical and lumbar spine, and noted that those restrictions had been objectively measured using a range of motion test. The affirmation also stated that the restrictions were permanent in nature. The affirmation was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a "significant limitation of use of a body function or system" (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; see also, Meyer v. Gallardo, 260 A.D.2d 556; Lombardi v. Columbo, 259 A.D.2d 524; Yahya v. Schwartz, 251 A.D.2d 498; Cenat v. Cutler, 251 A.D.2d 362; Pareti v. Giglietta, 221 A.D.2d 607; Meireles v. Lakeland Cent. School Dist., 208 A.D.2d 508; cf., Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79).

The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.