Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion by the appellants is granted, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants.
The appellants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff had not sustained a "serious injury" as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The plaintiff's affidavit, which consisted of subjective complaints of pain, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Almonacid v Meltzer, 222 A.D.2d 631). The unsworn report by the plaintiff's treating physician was not in admissible form and cannot be considered (see, Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268). The only other admissible evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition, the affidavit of Dr. Leonard Schuchman, was insufficient to defeat the motion. Dr. Schuchman failed to cite any objective tests which he performed in reaching his conclusions (see, Georgia v Ramautar, 180 A.D.2d 713; Giannakis v Paschilidou, 212 A.D.2d 502). In addition, Dr. Schuchman's affidavit reveals that the plaintiff only suffered minor, mild, or slight limitations of use, which are insufficient to establish serious injury (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955; Licari v Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 236). Furthermore, Dr. Schuchman's use of the words "permanent", "significant limitation", and "consequential limitation" in describing the plaintiff's injuries were clearly tailored to meet the statutory requirements, and thus, were insufficient to establish "serious injury" (see, Giannakis v Paschilidou, supra). O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.