Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is incumbent upon the courts to decide in the first instance whether a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Licari v Elliot, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 237). In the instant case, the record reveals that the injured plaintiff made a prompt return to full-time employment and that she is not limited from any activity. Significantly, a doctor who treated the injured plaintiff shortly after the accident and prescribed a program of physical therapy for her indicated that her injury would not result in significant disfigurement or permanent disability. Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the subject injuries met any of the threshold requirements for serious injury within the meaning of the statute (see, Palmeri v Newson, 118 A.D.2d 633; D'Iorio v Brancoccio, 115 A.D.2d 634; De Filippo v White, 101 A.D.2d 801). The submission of a medical affidavit is not a sine qua non to prevailing on a summary judgment motion predicated upon a failure to establish a serious injury (Ingles v Yurchak, 125 A.D.2d 452; Padron v Hood, 124 A.D.2d 718; Popp v Kremer, 124 A.D.2d 720). Accordingly, the order appealed from should be affirmed. Weinstein, J.P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.