Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint against Bahram Chubineh, M.D., dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of Bahram Chubineh, M.D. (defendant), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him in this action for medical malpractice. The complaint alleged that defendant was negligent in reading and interpreting X-rays of plaintiff's decedent. In support of his motion, defendant submitted his affidavit and the affidavit of a medical expert stating that defendant's examination of the X-rays was in accordance with good and accepted practice in the field of radiology. Those affidavits established defendant's entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law and shifted the burden to plaintiff to come forward with expert medical proof sufficient to establish the existence of a material issue of fact ( see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324-327; Santangelo v. Crouse Med. Group, 209 A.D.2d 942, appeal dismissed 85 N.Y.2d 905; Groeger v. Col-Les Orthopedic Assocs., 149 A.D.2d 973). The only expert medical proof submitted by plaintiff, however, was an unsworn report from a medical expert, which does not constitute proof in admissible form ( see, Grasso v. Angerami, 79 N.Y.2d 813, 814; Lough v. City of Syracuse, 191 A.D.2d 1018, 1019; Rohr v. Hoyt, 159 A.D.2d 980). Absent any expert medical proof in admissible form sufficient to establish a triable issue of fact, defendant was entitled to summary judgment ( see, Fileccia v. Massapequa Gen. Hosp., 99 A.D.2d 796, affd 63 N.Y.2d 639; Santangelo v. Crouse Med. Group, supra). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. — Summary Judgment.)