DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order dated November 25, 1998, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated June 8, 1999, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
The defendant met her initial burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning ofInsurance Law § 5102(d). Thus, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence to create an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957 ). We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to do so. In opposition to the cross motion the plaintiff submitted an affirmation by her treating chiropractor which was not in the form required by CPLR 2106. Moreover, the affidavit of the same chiropractor submitted by the plaintiff on the motion to renew was not newly-discovered evidence. Since the plaintiff did not proffer any reasonable explanation for her failure to submit an affirmation or affidavit in the form required byCPLR 2106 in opposition to the defendant's cross motion, the Supreme Court properly denied renewal (see, Doumanis v. Conzo, 227 A.D.2d 459 [2d Dept., Oct. 4, 1999]).
MANGANO, P.J., RITTER, JOY, McGINITY, and SMITH, JJ., concur.