Ordered that line order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the appellant's motion for summary judgment is granted, the complaint insofar as asserted against him is dismissed, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.
The Supreme Court improperly denied the appellant's motion for summary judgment. The appellant's evidence demonstrated prima facie that the plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury, as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) ( see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955; Baldasty v. Cooper, 238 A.D.2d 367; Craft v. Brantuk, 195 A.D.2d 438; Tatti v. Cummings, 193 A.D.2d 596; Pagano v. Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268). The plaintiff's evidence in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable question of fact on the issue. The affidavit of the plaintiff's chiropractor failed to quantify the plaintiffs loss of range of motion ( see, Wilkins v. Cameron, 214 A.D.2d 557, 558; Stallone v. County of Suffolk, 209 A.D.2d 403; Iglesias v. Inland Freightways, 209 A.D.2d 479, 480), and failed to identify any objective tests that he performed in reaching his conclusions ( see, Lincoln v. Johnson, 225 A.D.2d 593; Giannakis v. Paschilidou, 212 A.D.2d 502; Antoniou v. Duff, 204 A.D.2d 670).
O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.