Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which, upon reargument, denied the motion of the defendant Tatiana Mesa for summary judgment, and substituting therefor a provision adhering to the original determination granting the motion for summary judgment; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the appellants.
Contrary to the defendant Tatiana Mesa's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting reargument ( see Foley v. Roche, 68 AD2d 558). However, upon reargument, the Supreme Court erred in failing to adhere to its prior determination. Mesa made a prima facie showing that neither plaintiff sustained 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 Kearse v. New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affirmed medical reports of the plaintiffs' examining physician were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact insofar as they were based upon examinations that occurred approximately three years after the plaintiffs' last medical treatments, a gap in time which was not satisfactorily explained either by his reports or the plaintiffs' other submissions ( see Pommells v. Perez, 4 NY3d 566; Sammut v. Davis, 16 AD3d 658; Vita v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car, 8 AD3d 558).