Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The affirmation prepared by Dr. Noel H. Kleppel which was submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment made out a prima facie case that the plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In opposing the motion, the plaintiff failed to substantiate her allegation that for at least 90 of the 180 days immediately following the accident, she was prevented from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted her usual and customary daily activities. The plaintiff also failed to establish that she suffered a "significant limitation of use of a body function or system" (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Although the plaintiff's medical expert concluded in his affirmation that the plaintiff sustained a limitation of motion of her cervical and lumbosacral spine and also of her right knee, he failed to specify the extent or degree of the limitation (see, Beckett v Conte, 176 A.D.2d 774; Petrone v Thornton, 166 A.D.2d 513; Partlow v Meehan, 155 A.D.2d 647). Mangano, P.J., O'Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.