Justice David T. Reilly

Defendant moved for summary judgment on plaintiff's personal injury complaint, arising from an automobile accident, because plaintiff did not suffer a “serious injury”. The accident, in which plaintiff was rear-ended by defendant, allegedly resulted in various serious injuries and conditions to plaintiff, including bulging discs, radiculopathy, and left ankle dorsiflexors. The Insurance Law defined a “serious injury” as one “resulting in death, dismemberment, significant disfigurement, a fracture, loss of fetus, or permanent loss or significant limitation of use of body member or function.” To prove a loss under the latter category, a plaintiff was required to a specific percentage of the loss of range of motion or sufficient objective description of the “qualitative nature” of limitation. The court held that defendant made a prima facie showing that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury through the reports of plaintiff's own treating physician, who found that plaintiff exhibited normal joint function, and plaintiff's own testimony that he was not unable to perform daily activities. The court further held that the reports of plaintiff's other physicians were unreliable for failure to state how they measured limitation of plaintiff's range of motion.