FRIEDMAN
Ginsberg & Wolf, P.C., New York (Martin Wolf of counsel), for appellant. Cheven, Keely & Hatzis, New York (William B. Stock of counsel), for respondent.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., ACOSTA, RENWICK, RICHTER, ABDUS–SALAAM, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered August 26, 2011, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint, based on the failure to establish a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102[d], unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.
Defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as to plaintiff's claims of “significant limitation of use” of his right shoulder (Insurance Law § 5102[d]; see Spencer v. Golden Eagle, Inc., 82 A.D.3d 589, 590, 920 N.Y.S.2d 24 [1st Dept.2011] ). Defendant submitted an expert medical report finding normal ranges of motion, as well as the report of a radiologist who opined that the MRI of plaintiff's shoulder revealed no abnormalities.
In opposition, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact, since his treating physicians found a tear in his right shoulder ( see Duran v. Kabir, 93 A.D.3d 566, 567, 941 N.Y.S.2d 50 [1st Dept.2012], Peluso v. Janice Taxi Co., Inc., 77 A.D.3d 491, 492, 909 N.Y.S.2d 699 [1st Dept.2010] ), and recent range of motion limitations in his right shoulder ( see Jacobs v. Rolon, 76 A.D.3d 905, 908 N.Y.S.2d 31 [1st Dept.2010] ).
Since the Court of Appeals rejected “a rule that would make contemporaneous quantitative measurements a prerequisite to recovery,” there was no requirement that the treating physician set forth any objective test that would have been used at that time ( see Perl v. Meher, 18 N.Y.3d 208, 218, 936 N.Y.S.2d 655, 960 N.E.2d 424 [2011] ). Dr. Cortijo's report of an examination the day after plaintiff's accident established the requisite causation ( id. at 217–218, 936 N.Y.S.2d 655, 960 N.E.2d 424 [“a contemporaneous doctor's report is important to proof of causation” (emphasis omitted) ] ); plaintiff was not required to submit evidence of any quantified range of motion testing performed at that time ( see Biascochea v. Boves, 93 A.D.3d 548, 548–549, 940 N.Y.S.2d 599 [1st Dept.2012] ).
We note that if plaintiff prevails at trial on his serious injury claims, he will be entitled to recovery also on his non-serious injuries caused by the accident ( see Linton v. Nawaz, 14 N.Y.3d 821, 900 N.Y.S.2d 239, 926 N.E.2d 593 [2010];Rubin v. SMS Taxi Corp., 71 A.D.3d 548, 898 N.Y.S.2d 110 [2010] ).