Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The defendant made a prima facie showing, via his submissions, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident ( see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45; Collins v Stone, 8 AD3d 321). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff principally relied upon the affidavit of his treating neurologist, who also submitted an affirmed medical report. Neither submission raised a triable issue of fact since in both the affidavit and the affirmed medical report the plaintiff's examining neurologist relied on the unaffirmed/unsworn reports of others in reaching his opinion and diagnosis ( see Vallejo v Builders for Family Youth, Diocese of Brooklyn, Inc., 18 AD3d 741, 742; Mahoney v Zerillo, 6 AD3d 403; Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 AD2d 266, 267). All of the remaining submissions of the plaintiff, with the exception of his own affidavit, were unaffirmed/unsworn and thus without probative value in opposing the defendant's motion ( see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814; Hernandez v Taub, 19 AD3d 368, 368; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268, 270). In the absence of such admissible evidence of injury, the plaintiffs self-serving affidavit was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Fisher v Williams, 289 AD2d 288, 289). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.