ESTELITA MALUPA, plf-ap, v. ANTHONY OPPONG def-res, ANTHONY BORTOLOMEY def

10095. ESTELITA MALUPA, plf-ap, v. ANTHONY OPPONG def-res, ANTHONY BORTOLOMEY def — Dinkes & Schwitzer, P.C., New York (Andrea M. Arrigo of counsel), for ap — Law Offices of Moira Doherty, P.C., Bethpage (Alan M. McLaughlin of counsel), for Anthony Oppong, res — Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., Brooklyn (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), for Claudio A. Contreras, res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered March 2, 2012, which granted defendants’ motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint alleging serious injuries under the “permanent consequential” and “significant” limitation of use categories of Insurance Law §5102(d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established prima face absence of a serious injury in plaintiff’s cervical spine, lumbar spine, and right knee by submitting the affirmed reports of their neurologist and orthopedist who, after examining plaintiff, found absence of neurological deficits, full range of motion, and absence of permanency or residuals (see Barry v. Arias, 94 AD3d 499 [1st Dept 2012]; DeJesus v. Paulino, 61 AD3d 605 [1st Dept 2009]). Defendants also established prima facie absence of causation by submitting their radiologist’s MRI reports concluding that the MRI films taken shortly after the accident showed only preexisting degenerative conditions, and no evidence of acute or recent trauma (Barry, 94 AD3d at 499; Colon v. Vincent Plumbing & Mech. Co., 85 AD3d 541, 542 [1st Dept 2011]; DeJesus, 61 AD3d at 607). The failure of defendants’ experts to review plaintiff’s medical records in preparing their reports does not render the reports insufficient, as they detailed the specific objective tests they used in their personal examination of plaintiff, and the radiologist found no evidence of traumatic injury upon review of plaintiff’s MRI films (see Fuentes v. Sanchez, 91 AD3d 418, 419 [1st Dept 2012]). They were not required to examine any other part, since plaintiff made no other complaints of continuing injuries or symptoms resulting from the subject accident.