ORDERED that the appeal by the plaintiff Rosetta Mazzotta from so much of the order as granted her cross motion is dismissed, as she is not aggrieved thereby (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal by the plaintiff Andrea Mazzotta from so much of the order as granted the branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim is dismissed, as he is not aggrieved thereby (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent Jerome Vacca is awarded one bill of costs.
The defendant Jerome Vacca established a prima facie case that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff Rosetta Mazzotta were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law — 5102(d) by submitting an affirmed report of an examining physician who concluded that there was no disability (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957), and the unsworn report of Rosetta's treating physician who concluded that the disability was mild in nature (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, supra, at 957; Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 236; Pagano v. Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268, 271).
Rosetta's opposition, however, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, since she submitted an unsworn medical report, which was not in admissible form (see, Grasso v. Angerami, 79 N.Y.2d 813). In addition, the affirmation of her treating physician failed to set forth the objective tests he performed in arriving at his conclusion that her injuries were permanent in nature and not solely the result of her preexisting degenerative disc disease (see, Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79, 85; Kauderer v. Penta, 261 A.D.2d 365). In addition, Rosetta admitted that she resumed her work as a waitress within weeks after the accident.
The plaintiff Andrea Mazzotta failed to raise a triable issue of fact that he sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law — 5102(d) (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, supra), since he admitted that he did not suffer any physical injuries as a result of the accident, and the medical evidence regarding his psychological condition after the accident failed to show that he suffered an impairment sufficient to constitute a serious injury (see, Sellitto v. Casey, 268 A.D.2d 753, 755; Nolan v. Ford, 100 A.D.2d 579, affd 64 N.Y.2d 681).
SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, FLORIO, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.