DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.
The appellants established prima facie that the plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957 ). The affidavit of the plaintiff's treating physician submitted in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff suffered a serious injury. The affidavit was deficient as a matter of law, inter alia, because the opinion expressed therein regarding a "significant limitation of use of a body function or system" (Insurance Law § 5102[d]) was based upon an examination conducted over one year earlier rather than on a recent medical examination (see, Kosto v. Bonelli, 255 A.D.2d 557 ;Gutierrez v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 240 A.D.2d 469 ;Attanasio v. Lashley, 223 A.D.2d 614 ; Letellier v. Walker, 222 A.D.2d 658 ), and upon the unsworn medical reports of another physician (see, Shay v. Jerkins, 263 A.D.2d 475 ; Decayette v. Kreger Trucking Renting, 260 A.D.2d 342 ; Ahmed v. Yoo, 255 A.D.2d 345 ; Merisca v. Alford, 243 A.D.2d 613 ; Williams v. Hughes, 256 A.D.2d 461 ).