Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted an affirmation of her treating physician, dated February 29, 1996, which was based on a recent examination. The affirmation indicated that as a result of the accident, the plaintiff had a 20% restriction of motion of her cervical spine caused by cervical osteoarthritis, and a continued impression of cervical radiculopathy, and that these injuries are considered permanent. Summary judgment was properly denied as the affirmation was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained "significant limitation of use of a body function or system" (Lopez v. Senatore, 65 N.Y.2d 1017, 1019; Schwartz v. New York City Hous. Auth., 229 A.D.2d 481).
Rosenblatt, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.