FITZPATRICK v. SPOTTISWOOD

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in treating the plaintiff's motion as one to renew ( see, Oremland v. Miller Minuteman Constr. Corp., 133 A.D.2d 816).

Moreover, the physician's affidavit, which the plaintiff submitted upon renewal, provided objective evidence of the extent or degree of the limitation of movement of the plaintiff's cervical spine and its duration ( see, Beckett v. Conte, 176 A.D.2d 774), thus raising a triable issue of fact ( see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to the existence of a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Mangano, P.J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.