Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through competent evidence that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject automobile accident ( see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; D'Alba v Yong-Ae Choi, 33 AD3d 650; Faulkner v Steinman, 28 AD3d 604; Giraldo v Mandanici, 24 AD3d 419; Meyers v Bobower Yeshiva Bnei Zion, 20 AD3d 456). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Most of the plaintiff's medical submissions were without probative value because they were unsworn or unaffirmed ( see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813; Bycinthe v Kombos, 29 AD3d 845; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268). The affirmed medical report of the plaintiff's orthopedist also lacked probative value because it relied on the unsworn reports of others ( see Baksh v Shabi, 32 AD3d 525; Felix v New York City Tr. Auth., 32 AD3d 527; Jian-Yu Zhang v Qiang Wang, 24 AD3d 611; Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 AD2d 266). The remainder of the plaintiffs submissions was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Brobeck v Jolloh, 32 AD3d 526).