DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendant met his initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that the appellant did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) by submitting the affirmations of an orthopedist and neurologist who recently had examined the appellant (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955).
Although the affidavit of the appellant's chiropractor that she submitted in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment was in admissible form (see, Feinman v. Mennan Oil Co., 248 A.D.2d 503; Collins v. AA Truck Renting Corp., 209 A.D.2d 363; Matter of Hudson v. Board of Elections of City of New York, 207 A.D.2d 508), the chiropractor referred to findings from his examination of the appellant more than one year before the motion for summary judgment, and his "projections of permanent limitations have no probative value in the absence of a recent examination" (Bidetto v. Williams, 276 A.D.2d 516; [2d Dept., Oct. 10, 2000]; Mohamed v. Dhanasar, 273 A.D.2d 451; Smith v. Askew, 264 A.D.2d 834; Kauderer v. Penta, 261 A.D.2d 365; Evans v. Mohammad, 243 A.D.2d 604).