Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Once the defendants submitted evidence establishing that the plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the burden shifted to the plaintiff to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact ( see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957). The affidavit of the plaintiffs physician, based on an examination more than four years after the subject accident, consisted of conclusory assertions tailored to meet statutory requirements ( see, Medina v. Zalmen Reis Assocs., 239 A.D.2d 394; Verrelli v. Tronolone, 230 A.D.2d 789; Komar v. Showers, 227 A.D.2d 135; Morales v. Luna, 205 A.D.2d 673), and was, thus, insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Similarly, the plaintiffs affidavit, consisting of merely subjective complaints of pain, was also insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Furthermore, the scar on the plaintiffs forehead which he allegedly sustained in the subject accident does not constitute a significant disfigurement ( see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Hutchinson v. Beth Cab Corp., 204 A.D.2d 151).
Mangano, P.J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.