Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants met their prima facie burden 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 ( cf. 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. Initially, the unaffirmed medical reports submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendants' motion were without any probative value ( see Patterson v NY Alarm Response Corp., 45 AD3d 656; Verette v Zia, 44 AD3d 747; Nociforo v Penna, 42 AD3d 514; see also Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268). The affidavit of the plaintiffs examining orthopedic surgeon, as well as his annexed report, failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury as a result of the subject accident. The surgeon admitted in his affidavit that he relied upon the unsworn reports of others in coming to his conclusions ( see Malave v Basikov, 45 AD3d 539; Govori v Agate Corp., 44 AD3d 821; Verette v Zia, 44 AD3d 747; Furrs v Griffith, 43 AD3d 389; see also Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 AD2d 266, 267). Under the circumstances, the plaintiff failed to proffer competent medical evidence that he sustained a medically-determined injury of a nonpermanent nature which prevented him, for 90 of the 180 days following the subject accident, from performing his usual and customary activities ( see Roman v Fast Lane Car Serv., Inc., 46 AD3d 535; Sainte-Aime v Ho, 274 AD2d 569). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to adequately explain the lengthy gap in his treatment evident in the record ( see McNeil v Dixon, 9 AD3d 481).