Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by offering sufficient evidence, in the form of deposition testimony, which demonstrated that they were not at fault in the happening of the subject motor vehicle accident ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). The plaintiff, in opposition, failed to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). The affirmation of the plaintiff's attorney has no probative weight and cannot raise a triable issue of fact ( see Zuckerman v. City of New York, supra). The only other evidence submitted by the plaintiff was the MV-104 police accident report. The unsworn, self-serving statement in the MV-104 by the plaintiff's decedent that the defendants' vehicle hit his vehicle was insufficient as a matter of law to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Lacagnino v. Gonzalez, 306 AD2d 250; Hoffman v. Eastern Long Is. Transp. Enter., 266 AD2d 509, 510; Johnson v. Phillips, 261 AD2d 269, 270-271; Molina v. NYRAC, Inc., 228 AD2d 655, 656; Rue v. Stokes, 191 AD2d 245, 246-247). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment.