ELTER v. RITVO

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Material questions of fact remain as to whether the plaintiff John R. Elter suffered a "serious injury" as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) and whether the injury was proximately caused by the accident ( see, Beckett v. Conte, 176 A.D.2d 774; Petrone v Thornton, 166 A.D.2d 513; Gokey v. Castine, 163 A.D.2d 709; Partlow v. Meehan, 155 A.D.2d 647; Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on these issues. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.