Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing 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). Any restrictions in motion noted by the defendant's neurologist were adequately explained as self-imposed and unrelated to the accident, as part of the expert's qualitative assessment ( see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d at 350).
On appeal, the plaintiff raises no argument that any of her submissions in opposition to the defendant's motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. We note, however, that the unaffirmed and uncertified reports and records relied upon by the plaintiff are without probative value ( see Rodriguez v Cesar, 40 AD3d 731, 732-733; Phillips v Zilinsky, 39 AD3d 728, 729; Osgood v Martes, 39 AD3d 516; Borgella v D L Taxi Corp., 38 AD3d 701, 702). The affirmation of the plaintiff's treating physician is likewise without probative value as the physician's conclusions rely upon the unsworn reports of others ( see Phillips v Zilinsky, 39 AD3d at 729; Porto v Blum, 39 AD3d 614, 615; Marziotto v Striano, 38 AD3d 623, 624; Iusmen v Konopka, 38 AD3d 608, 609).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.