With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2001) (reversing denial of summary judgment because plaintiff failed to provide “sufficient objective proof of the extent or degree of the alleged physical limitations resulting from the disc injuries”). Jacobson’s deposition testimony as to Molina’s neck and back limitations is based entirely upon Molina’s subjective complaints of pain, which, as stated above, is insufficient. Moreover, that evidence related to Molina’s injury in the days immediately following the accident. Without any objective evidence that these alleged limitations lasted much longer, no reasonable juror could conclude that Molina’s injuries were permanent, significant, or curtailed her customary activities for more than 90 days. See, e.g., Kim v. Kim, 266 A.D.2d 190, 697 N.Y.S.2d 676, 677 (App. Div.2d Dep’t 1999) (<HOLDING>); see also Petrone v. Thornton, 166 A.D.2d 513,

A: holding that evidence of alleged limitations obtained soon after accident was without more insufficient to survive summary judgment
B: holding without discussing the plaintiffs burden of persuasion that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment
C: holding that the nonmoving party must produce more than a scintilla of evidence to survive summary judgment
D: holding that selfserving deposition testimony standing alone is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment
A.