Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Defendants sustained their burden of establishing prima facie that Sondra Eldred (plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury. The burden thus shifted to plaintiff to come forward with evidence that she suffered a serious injury within one of several categories enumerated in the statute (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Shames v. Murtha, 204 A.D.2d 841). Plaintiff failed to sustain her burden of making "`a prima facie showing of serious injury sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact'" (Logan v. Laidlaw School Tr., 175 A.D.2d 568, 569) with respect to "medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents [her] from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute [her] usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment" (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Nor did plaintiff offer proof that she suffered a "significant limitation of use of a body function or system" (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). The opinion of plaintiff's physician that plaintiff suffers from chronic pain syndrome is based upon plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain and is unsupported by any objective medical evidence (see, Logan v Laidlaw School Tr., supra). The physician's affidavit, which appears to have been tailored to meet statutory requirements, was not sufficient to establish a serious injury (see, Antorino v Mordes, 202 A.D.2d 528; Dubois v. Simpson, 182 A.D.2d 993).