Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants met their prima facie burden on their motion for summary judgment 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; see also Meyers v Bobower Yeshiva Bnei Zion, 20 AD3d 456). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff principally relied upon the submission of voluminous unaffirmed reports and uncertified medical records, which were without any probative value ( see Rodriguez v Cesar, 40 AD3d 731, 732-733). The affirmation of the plaintiff's treating physician also lacked any probative value since he relied on unaffirmed reports of others ( see Furrs v Griffith, 43 AD3d 389; Phillips v Zilinsky, 39 AD3d 728; Porto v Blum, 39 AD3d 614, 615), and failed to compare any of his own findings on range of motion to what is normal ( see Nociforo v Penna, 42 AD3d 514, 515; McNulty v Buglino, 40 AD3d 591).