DAN v. LUKE

The court properly granted summary judgment to defendants, who predicated their motion upon, inter alia, Plaintiff's bill of particulars and various X-ray, MRI and other reports prepared and signed by Plaintiff's treating physicians ( see, Deangelo v Marcia Serv. Corp., 199 AD2d 58). These submissions established that there is no merit to Plaintiff's claim of "serious injury" within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) ( see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017). Moreover, the court properly determined that Plaintiff's letter and a report prepared by two of Plaintiff's treating physicians were inadmissible because they were unsworn and had not been affirmed ( see, CPLR 2106; McLoyrd v Pennypacker, 178 AD2d 227, lv denied 79 NY2d 754). In any event, these documents do not demonstrate that plaintiff suffered a "serious injury" within the meaning of section 5102 (d).