ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion for summary judgment. The defendant's papers in support of his motion failed to establish that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d) in the subject collision (see, CPLR 3212[b]; cf., Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). Because the affirmed reports of the defendant's examining physicians were improperly submitted to the Supreme Court for the first time in his reply papers, we decline to consider them (see, CPLR 2214; Klimis v. Lopez, 290 A.D.2d 538 [2d Dept., Jan. 28, 2002]; Feratovic v. Lun Wah, Inc., 284 A.D.2d 368). Under these circumstances, we need not consider whether the plaintiffs' opposition papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Klimis v. Lopez, supra; Boland v. Dig Am., 277 A.D.2d 337).
PRUDENTI, P.J., FLORIO, S. MILLER, FRIEDMANN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.