ALMONACID v. MELTZER

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 ( Jacondino v Lovis, 186 A.D.2d 109, 110; see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957; Tatti v Cummings, 193 A.D.2d 596). The affidavit of the plaintiff's treating chiropractor consisted of conclusory assertions tailored to meet statutory requirements ( see, Lopez v Senatore, 65 N.Y.2d 1017, 1019) and was, thus, insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( Marshall v Albano, 182 A.D.2d 614). Similarly, the plaintiff's affidavit consisted of merely subjective complaints of pain and was also insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see, Iaria v Romero, 194 A.D.2d 769). O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.