Opinion
January 9, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ingrassia, J.).
Ordered that the appeals from the orders entered December 3, 1986 and dated April 16, 1987 are dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.
The appeal from the intermediate orders must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the orders are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
The issue of whether the plaintiff Marco Martini has made a prima facie showing of having sustained a serious injury is one for the court in the first instance (Licari v Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 237). We agree with the Supreme Court that the injured plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) and § 5104 (a) since his injuries, "a slight narrowing of intervertebral disc spaces * * * suggest[ing] mild cervical spondylosis", did not permanently or significantly limit the use of a body organ, function or system. Accordingly, the court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Jones v Sharpe, 63 N.Y.2d 645; Lopez v Senatore, 97 A.D.2d 787).
We note that the information submitted in support of the plaintiffs' motion to renew their opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was clearly available at the time of the original motion and that the plaintiffs failed to provide, as is required, any explanation as to why such information was not presented in their earlier opposition (see, Brann v City of New York, 96 A.D.2d 923; Champlain Val. Elec. Supply Co. v Miller, 89 A.D.2d 1036; Foley v Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558). Thus, the motion to renew was properly denied. Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.