In our view, plaintiff presented sufficient objective evidence to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of section 5102(d) of the Insurance Law. We agree with the IAS court that the unsworn MRI report of Dr. DeNise does not constitute evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to defeat the motions (Rodriguez v. Goldstein, 182 A.D.2d 396; Braham v. U Haul Co., 195 A.D.2d 277). However, Dr. Greenbaum's affirmation, standing alone, serves as a sufficient basis for defeating the motions. The affirmation sets forth specific objective data concerning his examination, testing and clinical findings. His opinion is based upon more than plaintiff's subjective complaints, and summary judgment should have been denied (Verderosa v. Simonelli, 260 A.D.2d 293, 689 N.Y.S.2d 45; Vargas v. New York City Transit Authority, 254 A.D.2d 175).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.