ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant met her initial burden of establishing, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law — 5102(d) by submitting, inter alia, the affirmed medical reports of an orthopedist and neurologist, based upon recent examinations of the plaintiff (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955; Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 236).
In opposition to the defendant's motion, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, numerous reports that were not in admissible form (see, Grasso v. Angerami, 79 N.Y.2d 813, 814; Gleason v. Huber, 188 A.D.2d 581). Furthermore, the two affirmations of the plaintiff's physicians were based on examinations of the plaintiff conducted over one year before the motion for summary judgment. Those projections of permanent limitations have no probative value in the absence of a recent examination (see, Bidetto v. Williams, 276 A.D.2d 516; Mohamed v. Dhanasar, 273 A.D.2d 451; Kauderer v. Penta, 261 A.D.2d 365; Evans v. Mohammad, 243 A.D.2d 604). Moreover, those affirmations failed to state what, if any, objective tests were performed to determine the range of motion of the plaintiff's spine and shoulder (see, Monaco v. Davenport, 277 A.D.2d 209; Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79, 85; Smith v. Askew, 264 A.D.2d 834; Kauderer v. Penta, supra; Lobo v. Singh, 259 A.D.2d 523).