DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether he had sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955 ). The plaintiff's evidence in opposition to the defendant's motion consisted of certain notes of his treating physician, which were not in admissible form (see, DiNunzio v. County of Suffolk, 256 A.D.2d 498 ). His claim that he was unable to work for six months following the accident was not supported by any competent medical evidence linking the purported inability to work with his alleged accident-related injuries (see, DiNunzio v. County of Suffolk, supra).
BRACKEN, J.P., SANTUCCI, ALTMAN, and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.