Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff met her burden by demonstrating that she suffered a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Specifically, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit from a doctor of osetoepathy who stated that plaintiff incurred "restricted motion [of the lumbar spine] by 10 degrees * * * after achieving maximum medical improvement". This affidavit concluded that the plaintiff is "permanently partially disabled". Accordingly, the plaintiff demonstrated by competent medical evidence that she suffered a significant permanent limitation of a body function or system and the defendant's motion was thus properly denied (see, Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230; Burgwin v. Langmaack, 224 A.D.2d 569). Rosenblatt, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ. concur.