Opinion
December 29, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Brien, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Once the defendants submitted evidence establishing that the plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the burden shifted to the plaintiff to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact ( Jacondino v Lovis, 186 A.D.2d 109, 110; see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957; Tatti v Cummings, 193 A.D.2d 596). The affidavit of the plaintiff's treating chiropractor consisted of conclusory assertions tailored to meet statutory requirements ( see, Lopez v Senatore, 65 N.Y.2d 1017, 1019) and was, thus, insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( Marshall v Albano, 182 A.D.2d 614). Similarly, the plaintiff's affidavit consisted of merely subjective complaints of pain and was also insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see, Iaria v Romero, 194 A.D.2d 769). O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.