law, Molina has not demonstrated that she Suffered from a serious injury. The Government has easily made a pri-ma facie case that Molina’s injuries do not meet the relevant standard for serious injury. The Government has submitted the affidavit of its expert, Dr. George DiGia-cinto (“DiGiacinto”), who examined Molina in November 2002 and determined that she had a full range of motion in her neck and lower back, and that there were no objective signs that she suffered any relevant limitati f this evidence and assuming the accident caused the bulging discs, Molina has failed to provide objective evidence of the extent or degree of the alleged resulting physical limitation. See Ceglian v. Chan, 283 A.D.2d 536, 724 N.Y.S.2d 762 (App. Div.2d Dep 61 N.Y.S.2d 49, 50 (App. Div 2d Dep’t 1990) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Molina’s complaint alleges that she
recognizing that a principal may limit the authority of its agent and such limitation will be binding on a third party who is aware of the limitation holding that the discovery rule within mcl 6005838a2 is an alternative to the other periods of limitation and it is itself a period of limitation holding that additional consideration is a factor in determining whether there is an implied contract of employment holding that duration of limitation is a factor in determining whether limitation is significant holding that limitation of liability clause was unambiguous