DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident, through the affirmations of an orthopedist, neurologist, and radiologist ( see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). The affirmation of the plaintiff's physician submitted in opposition to the defendants' motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff's physician failed to set forth the tests that she used, and their results, to support her conclusion that the plaintiff sustained a "meaningful" impairment ( see Kauderer v. Penta, 261 A.D.2d 365). In addition, her findings were not based upon a recent examination of the plaintiff ( see Kauderer v. Penta, supra), and no satisfactory explanation was offered for the nearly 2 ½ year gap between the last examination and treatment and the date of the motion for summary judgment ( see Smith v. Askew, 264 A.D.2d 834).
Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any competent medical evidence to support a claim that he was unable to perform substantially all of his daily activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days as a result of the subject accident ( see Sainte-Aime v. Ho, 274 A.D.2d 569; Jackson v. New York City Tr. Auth., 273 A.D.2d 200; Greene v. Miranda, 272 A.D.2d 441; Arshad v. Gomer, 268 A.D.2d 450; Bennett v. Reed, 263 A.D.2d 800; DiNunzio v. County of Suffolk, 256 A.D.2d 498, 499).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and MASTRO, JJ., concur.