Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent and the defendants-respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
On their separate motions for summary judgment, the defendant third-party plaintiff, John Hines, the defendants, Michael Cardineau and Richard J. Cardineau, the third-party defendants Matthew Kay and Susan Kay, and the third-party defendant Ronald Pina, met their prima facie burdens of showing 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, 956-957). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Since neither the affidavit of the plaintiff's treating chiropractor nor the affirmation of his treating neurologist were based on a recent examination, they were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury based on either a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member, or a significant limitation of use of a body function or system ( see Deutsch v Tenempaguay, 48 AD3d 614, 615; Ali v Mirshah, 41 AD3d 748, 749; Mejia v DeRose, 35 AD3d 407; Elgendy v Nieradko, 307 AD2d 251). In addition, the plaintiff failed to provide any competent medical evidence establishing that he sustained a medically determined injury of a nonpermanent nature which prevented him from performing his usual and customary activities for 90 of the 180 days following the subject accident ( see Kuchero v Tabachnikov, 54 AD3d 729; Sainte-Aime v Ho, 274 AD2d 569, 570).