Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the' law, with costs, that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action of the complaint is denied, and the second cause of action of the complaint is reinstated.
The Supreme Court improperly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action of the complaint, asserted by the plaintiff Parthia Lombardi (hereinafter the appellant) to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained. The defendants were required to establish a prima facie case that the appellant did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) ( see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955; Moore v. Tappen, 242 A.D.2d 526; Healea v. Andriani, 158 A.D.2d 587).
The defendants' submissions included a report prepared by a physician who examined the appellant on behalf of the defendants almost two years after the underlying accident. This report indicated, inter alia, that the right lateral flexion of the appellant's cervical spine was 19 degrees less than its left lateral flexion. This objectively measured, specifically-quantified restriction of motion raises a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellant suffered a "significant limitation of use of a body function or system" (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; see, Cesar v. Felix, 181 A.D.2d 852, 853; Healea v. Andriani, supra; Parker v. Defontaine-Stratton, 231 A.D.2d 412, 413; see also, Fitzpatrick v. Spottiswood, 243 A.D.2d 676; Moore v. Tappen, supra; Grullon v. Chang Ok Chu, 240 A.D.2d 367; Wolfram v. Vassilou, 239 A.D.2d 340; Carucci v. Tzimopoulos, 238 A.D.2d 459).
O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.