In Toure v. Avis Rent a Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 (2002) although Dr. Waltz's affirmation did not ascribe a specific percentage to the loss of range of motion in plaintiff's spine, the Court held that "he sufficiently describes the "qualitative nature" of plaintiff's limitations "based on the normal function, purpose and use of the body part" ... Dr. Waltz further attributes the limitations in plaintiff's physical activities to the nature of the injuries sustained by opining that plaintiff's "difficulty in sitting, standing or walking for any extended period of time and his inability to lift heavy boxes at work are a natural and expected medical consequence of his injuries"." Since Dr. Waltz's opinion was supported by objective medical evidence of MRI reports, "paired with his observations of muscle spasms during his physical examination of plaintiff, considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, this evidence was sufficient to defeat defendants' motion for summary judgment ...We cannot say that the alleged limitations of plaintiff's back and neck are so "minor, mild or slight" as to be considered insignificant within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102 (d)." (Toure v. Avis Rent a Car Sys., supra, 98 NY2d at 353.)