The following numbered papers were read on these motions: Submitted by Defendant NYSCEF Doc No. 56: Notice of Motion NYSCEF Doc No. 57: Affirmation of Robert J. Gironda, Esq. in Support (“Gironda aff”) NYSCEF Doc No. 58: Exhibit A — Police Report NYSCEF Doc No. 59: Exhibit B — Summons and Complaint, and Answer NYSCEF Doc No. 60: Exhibit C — Order and Note of Issue NYSCEF Doc No. 61: Exhibit D — IME Report of Dr. Daniel J. Feuer (“Dr. Feuer report”) NYSCEF Doc No. 62: Exhibit E — IME Report of Dr. Alexandra Carrer (“Dr. Carrer report”) NYSCEF Doc No. 63: Exhibit F — Plaintiff’s EBT Transcript NYSCEF Doc No. 66: Stipulation of Adjournment of Motion (“adjournment stipulation”) Submitted by Court NYSCEF Doc No. 67: Interim order denying adjournment (“interim order”) NYSCEF Doc No. 68: Interim order denying adjournment (duplicate copy) DECISION AND ORDER I. Questions Presented On a defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint on the asserted ground of lack of serious injury in a motor vehicle accident, where the defendant relies on medical experts whose reports contradict each other with respect to findings on range of motion testing of the plaintiff on the very same day, has the defendant made out its prima facie case? If said medical experts also differ on the human body norms for range of motion, has the defendant made out its prima facie case? There is little case law on the issue of a party’s medical experts contradicting each other with respect to range of motion findings and norms in the context of serious injury summary judgment motions. On a defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint on the asserted ground of lack of serious injury in a motor vehicle accident, where one of the defendant’s medical experts opines that findings on her examination were objective, there was no evidence of a pre-existing condition, the plaintiff’s injuries were neither resolved nor resolving, and the plaintiff’s prognosis was poor, should the defendant’s motion be denied and, moreover, should the court search the record and grant summary judgment on the issue of serious injury to the plaintiff if the latter did not interpose opposition and did not cross-move for summary judgment? While no case law exactly on this issue was located, and one case from the Third Department discusses awarding summary judgment to a plaintiff on the serious injury threshold without the plaintiff having moved on the issue, there was at least opposition therein by the plaintiff to a defense motion on serious injury. In the case at bar, there was no written opposition submitted by the plaintiff. II. Introduction Plaintiff Nataliya Horodova (“Plaintiff”) asserts in this action that on June 28, 2017, she sustained personal injuries while a passenger in a bus rear-ended by a vehicle operated by Defendant Maurice Richard (Defendant) (see NYSCEF Doc No. 59, complaint
