COLOQUHOUN v. 5 TOWNS AMBULETTE, INC

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In support of their cross motion for summary judgment, the defendants submitted evidence in admissible form establishing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955; Bocci v. Turkowitz, 255 A.D.2d 476). The plaintiff's opposition papers failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect thereto. The plaintiff's subjective complaints of headaches, backaches, and leg pain were insufficient to defeat the defendants' motion (see, Tabacco v. Kasten, 229 A.D.2d 526; Barrett v. Howland, 202 A.D.2d 383; Oswald v. Ospina, 187 A.D.2d 570). Furthermore, the plaintiff's treating physician failed to provide objective evidence of the extent or degree of the alleged physical limitations of the plaintiff's leg or arm that were caused by the subject accident (see, Greene v. Miranda, 272 A.D.2d 441; Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79; Guzman v. Michael Mgt., 266 A.D.2d 508). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.