Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contentions, a review of the medical records of the treating physician, the records of the physical therapist, as well as the injured plaintiff's own deposition testimony, demonstrates that the injured plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Iaria v. Romero, 194 A.D.2d 769; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268; Rhind v. Naylor, 187 A.D.2d 498). Nor are we persuaded otherwise by the orthopedist's affirmation, since it is comprised of "conclusory assertions tailored to meet the statutory requirements" (Lopez v. Senatore, 65 N.Y.2d 1017, 1019; see also, Waldman v. Dong Kook Chang, 175 A.D.2d 204), and because the orthopedist's diagnosis is based primarily upon the injured plaintiff's own subjective complaints of pain (see, Georgia v. Ramautar, 180 A.D.2d 713).
Under these circumstances, the injured plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of serious injury (see, Scheer v Koubek, 70 N.Y.2d 678; Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230). Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.