Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The affirmations of the defendant's examining physicians, when considered with the plaintiff's deposition testimony, made out a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) ( see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Fragale v. Geiger, 288 AD2d 431; Hodges v. Jones, 238 AD2d 962; Gleason v. Huber, 188 AD2d 581; Pagano v. Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268). The affidavits of the plaintiff's physicians submitted in opposition to the defendant's motion were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as, inter alia, they failed to adequately account for the gap of time between the conclusion of the plaintiff's medical treatments and their examinations ( see Jimenez v. Kambli, 272 AD2d 581; Smith v. Askew, 264 AD2d 834), failed to adequately account for the plaintiff's having been injured in a subsequent accident ( see e.g. Dimenshteyn v. Caruso, 262 AD2d 348), appeared to be solely based upon the plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain ( see Barrett v. Howland, 202 AD2d 383; LeBrun v. Joyner, 195 AD2d 502; Coughlan v. Donnelly, 172 AD2d 480), and appeared to have been tailored solely to meet the statutory requirements ( see Giannakis v. Paschilidou, 212 AD2d 502; Powell v. Hurdle, 214 AD2d 720).
Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted.