ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The only submission made by the defendants in support of their motion for summary judgment was the bare affirmation of their attorney, which was not based on personal knowledge, and therefore, was without evidentiary value (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; Carpluk v. Friedman, 269 A.D.2d 349; Sloan v. Schoen, 251 A.D.2d 319). Thus, the defendants' motion papers failed to make out a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law — 5102(d) (see, Peschanker v. Loporto, 252 A.D.2d 485; Malary v. New York City Tr. Auth., 232 A.D.2d 380; Mendola v. Demetres, 212 A.D.2d 515). Furthermore, we decline to consider the purported affirmation of the defendants' examining neurologist, which was improperly submitted for the first time in the defendants' reply papers (see, CPLR 2214; Voytek Technology v. Rapid Access Consulting, 279 A.D.2d 470).