Defendants permissibly used unsworn reports of the plaintiff's doctors, disclosed to defendants by plaintiff (see, Lowe v Bennett, 122 A.D.2d 728, 729, affd 69 N.Y.2d 700), to demonstrate that plaintiff's claimed "serious injury" was based on conclusory assertions about his condition (see, Cannizzaro v King, 187 A.D.2d 842, 843), and on subjective assertions of his pain (see, Coon v Brown, 192 A.D.2d 908, 909). Plaintiff did not show that he was limited in any activities that could be called "daily tasks" (Sole v Kurnik, 119 A.D.2d 974, 975, lv dismissed 68 N.Y.2d 806), nor did he demonstrate that any of his disabilities persisted for at least 90 days during the 180 days immediately following his accident (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]).
We have considered the plaintiff's remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Ross, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.