DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant 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 ( see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). A report of the plaintiff's treating physician in opposition to the motion was unaffirmed and therefore without probative value ( see Grasso v. Angerami, 79 N.Y.2d 813, 814; Friedman v. U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 A.D.2d 266, 267; Pagano v. Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268, 270). The plaintiff's other expert failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for the two-year gap between the accident and the date of his examination ( see Jimenez v. Kambli, 272 A.D.2d 581, 582; Smith v. Askew, 264 A.D.2d 834).
Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any competent medical evidence supporting his claim that he was unable to perform substantially all of his daily activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days following the subject accident as a result of the accident ( see Sainte-Aime v. Ho, 274 A.D.2d 569, 570; Jackson v. New York City Tr. Auth., 273 A.D.2d 200, 201; Greene v. Miranda, 272 A.D.2d 441, 442; Arshad v. Gomer, 268 A.D.2d 450; Bennett v. Reed, 263 A.D.2d 800, 801; DiNunzio v. County of Suffolk, 256 A.D.2d 498, 499).
Accordingly, the defendant was properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, TOWNES, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.