DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The defendant's motion papers made out a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the accident (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). Thus, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to come forward with admissible proof that she sustained a serious injury (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, supra; Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 235; Lopez v. Senatore, 65 N.Y.2d 1017).
The plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to defeat the defendant`s motion for summary judgment. The chiropractor's affirmation submitted by the plaintiff did not constitute competent evidence (see, Cubero v. DeMarco, 272 A.D.2d 430; Garvey v. Riela, 272 A.D.2d 519; Young v. Ryan, 265 A.D.2d 547). Furthermore, the plaintiff's affidavit, which consisted merely of self-serving, subjective complaints of pain, was without probative value (see, Young v. Ryan, supra, at 548; Rum v. Pam Transp., 250 A.D.2d 751).