RAINEY v. SMITH

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) through the affirmed reports of a neurologist and an orthopedist, who both examined the plaintiff and found that she had no disability (see Duldulao v. City of New York, 284 A.D.2d 296; Meric v. Cancela, 275 A.D.2d 309).

The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion was neither sworn to nor affirmed to be true under penalty of perjury, and thus did not constitute competent evidence (see Meric v. Cancela, supra).

FLORIO, J.P., O'BRIEN, FRIEDMANN, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.