Opinion
October 5, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burstein, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff did not sustain a "serious injury" within the purview of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230). In support of his motion, the defendant relied, inter alia, on an unsworn report prepared by his examining physician, and two unsworn reports prepared by the plaintiff's own treating physicians.
Although a moving defendant may rely on the unsworn reports of the plaintiff's own physicians in support of a motion for summary judgment, the reports relied upon here do not demonstrate that the plaintiff had not suffered a "serious injury". Additionally, the unsworn report of the defendant's own expert was not in admissible form. Accordingly, the papers submitted in support of the motion were insufficient to make a prima facie showing of the defendant's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268).
In any event, the plaintiff carried his burden of establishing a prima facie case of "serious injury" pursuant to Insurance Law § 5102 (d) with the affidavits of two chiropractors (see, Marsh v Wolfson, 186 A.D.2d 115; Bates v Peeples, 171 A.D.2d 635; Spezia v De Marco, 173 A.D.2d 462; Morsellino v Frankel, 161 A.D.2d 748; Conde v Eric Serv. Corp., 158 A.D.2d 651). Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.