Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is against the defendant Dale Kasten.
The appellant met his initial burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a "serious injury" within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Once a defendant submits evidence demonstrating the lack of "serious injury", the burden shifts to the plaintiff to come forward with sufficient evidence to overcome the motion ( see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). The plaintiff failed to meet this burden. The affidavits of the plaintiff and her treating physician setting forth the plaintiff's continuing subjective complaints of pain were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see, Malloy v Brisco, 183 A.D.2d 704; Georgia v. Ramautar, 180 A.D.2d 713). An additional physician's affidavit which failed to specify the degree of the plaintiff's limitation of motion was also insufficient ( see, Tipping-Cestari v Kilhenny, 174 A.D.2d 663). In addition, the mere use of the conclusory words "significant" and "permanent" in the physician's affidavit is not sufficient ( see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, supra; Lopez v. Senatore, 65 N.Y.2d 1017; Flater v. Brennan, 173 A.D.2d 945). Finally, the plaintiff cannot rely on the unsworn medical report of her own treating physician ( see, Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268). O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.