Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The plaintiffs submitted extracts from the plaintiff Jan Zelenak's examination before trial, in opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on their assertion that the plaintiff Jan Zelenak had not suffered a "serious injury" as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). These extracts consisted entirely of vague, self-serving, and conclusory assertions concerning his recurrent pain and his inability to work. As such, they were insufficient to establish, prima facie, that he sustained a "serious injury" as defined by the statute (see, Scheer v Koubek, 70 N.Y.2d 678; Licari v Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230; Palmer v Amaker, 141 A.D.2d 622). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment (see, Petrone v Thornton, 166 A.D.2d 513; Zaccara v Goff, 161 A.D.2d 638; O'Neill v Rogers, 163 A.D.2d 466; Phillips v Costa, 160 A.D.2d 855; Konco v E.T.C. Leasing Corp., 160 A.D.2d 680; Sundack v Power Test Petro Corp., 150 A.D.2d 440; Covington v Cinnirella, 146 A.D.2d 565). Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.