Opinion
March 22, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the defendants submitted a medical report which was affirmed under penalty of perjury by a physician. The report made out a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).
In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff relied upon the medical reports of the defendants' physicians, both of whom served as experts for the defendants. Neither of these reports, however, raised a triable issue of fact ( see, CPLR 3212 [b]). The other medical report upon which the plaintiff relied was unsworn and unsigned, and therefore did not constitute evidentiary proof in admissible form ( see, Pagano v. Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268).
Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.