Order affirmed, with costs.
"Summary judgment is an appropriate vehicle for determining whether a plaintiff can establish, prima facie, a serious injury" within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (formerly Insurance Law § 671 [4]) (Zoldas v Louise Cab Corp., 108 A.D.2d 378, 381). Nevertheless, a defendant movant has the burden of showing "entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case" (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853; see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065, 1067). In the instant case, the defendants have failed to meet their burden. Accordingly, the denial of their motion for summary judgment was proper.
Under these circumstances, we need not reach the issue of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' opposing papers (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, supra). Brown, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.