DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The defendants each made a prima facie showing that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as a result of the subject accident within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) ( see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345, 352 ; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957; Varghese v. Ehret, 305 A.D.2d 402; McCauley v. Ross, 298 A.D.2d 506, 506-507; Holmes v. Hanson, 286 A.D.2d 750, 751). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The magnetic resonance imaging reports of the injured plaintiff's radiologists did not constitute competent evidence ( see Grasso v. Angerami, 79 N.Y.2d 813, 814-815; Caldwell v. Kellner, 200 A.D.2d 702; Tatti v. Cummings, 193 A.D.2d 596). Furthermore, the injured plaintiff's self-serving allegations that she can no longer perform her daily duties and household chores were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a medically-determined injury of a nonpermanent nature which prevented her from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute her usual and customary daily activities ( see Young v. Ryan, 265 A.D.2d 547, 548; Rum v. Pam Transp., 250 A.D.2d 751).
Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly declined to consider the physician's affidavit improperly submitted by the plaintiff for the first time in a sur-reply ( see CPLR 2214; Klimis v. Lopez, 290 A.D.2d 538; Voytek Technology v. Rapid Access Consulting, 279 A.D.2d 470, 471).
FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO, TOWNES and RIVERA, JJ., concur.