Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"In medical malpractice actions, a plaintiff opposing a defendant physician's summary judgment motion must submit material or evidentiary facts to rebut the physician's prima facie showing that he or she was not negligent in treating the plaintiff" ( DiMitri v. Monsouri, 302 AD2d 420, 421; see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). General allegations that are conclusory and unsupported are insufficient to defeat summary judgment ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., supra at 324).
Through medical records, depositions, and an affirmation of an expert witness, the respondents established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact through the affirmed report of their expert witness as to whether the alleged malpractice was the proximate cause of the injuries ( see Prete v. Rafla-Demetrious, 224 AD2d 674, 676; Margolese v. Uribe, 238 AD2d 164, 167), nor did he differentiate between the various defendants who treated the injured plaintiff and their treatment options ( see Kaplan v. Hamilton Med. Assoc., 262 AD2d 609). Therefore, summary judgment was properly granted to the respondents.
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.