Ordered that the order dated June 24, 1993, is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which vacated so much of the court's order dated March 4, 1993, as granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and substituting therefor a provision affirming so much of that order as granted the defendants' motion; as so modified, the order dated June 24, 1993, is affirmed, with costs to the appellants.
The affirmations submitted by the plaintiff's medical experts in support of his motion to reargue were insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment because they failed to establish that the plaintiff had sustained a "serious injury" within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The opinions expressed by the plaintiff's chiropractor in his submission were based on an examination he had performed almost 2 1/2 years earlier (see, Beckett v Conte, 176 A.D.2d 774; Philpots v Petrovic, 160 A.D.2d 856), while the supplemental affirmation prepared by Dr. Vera Zablozki failed to provide objective evidence of the extent or degree of the plaintiff's physical limitations and their duration (Beckett v Conte, supra). Mangano, P.J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.