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). The affirmation of the plaintiff's physician, submitted in opposition to the defendant's motion, was based upon an examination conducted shortly after the accident and three years before the motion for summary judgment ( see Covington v. Cinnirella, 146 A.D.2d 565; also Zuckerman v. Karagjozi, 247 A.D.2d 536). This affirmation impermissibly relied upon the unsworn reports of other doctors ( see Friedman v. U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 A.D.2d 266) and upon the plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain ( see Barrett v. Howland, 202 A.D.2d 383; LeBrun v. Joyner, 195 A.D.2d 502; Coughlan v. Donnelly, 172 A.D.2d 480), and failed to take into account the fact that the plaintiff was injured in a subsequent automobile accident ( see Dimenshteyn v. Caruso, 262 A.D.2d 348). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and MASTRO, JJ., concur.