DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants submitted evidence which established a prima facie case that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). All but one of the medical reports submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the motion were neither sworn to nor affirmed to be true under penalty of perjury and thus did not constitute competent evidence (see, CPLR 2106; Grasso v. Angerami, 79 N.Y.2d 813; Moore v. Tappen, 242 A.D.2d 526; Mobley v. Riportella, 241 A.D.2d 443; Attivissimo v. Kugler, 226 A.D.2d 658). The remaining medical report merely contained "conclusory allegations tailored to meet statutory requirements" (Lopez v. Senatore, 65 N.Y.2d 1017; see, Perez v. Velez, 253 A.D.2d 865; Stowe v. Simmons, 253 A.D.2d 422; Medina v. Zalmen Reis Assocs., 239 A.D.2d 394; Marshall v. Albano, 182 A.D.2d 614).